VOLUME 60, NUMBER 1 1 - Yale University

VOLUME 60, NUMBER 1 1

Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society60(1), 2006, 1–37

A GLIMPSE INTO A “FLORA ET ENTOMOLOGIA”: THE NATURAL HISTORY OF THE RARERLEPIDOPTEROUS INSECTS OF GEORGIA BY J. E. SMITH AND J. ABBOT (1797)

JOHN V. CALHOUN1

977 Wicks Dr., Palm Harbor, FL 34684

ABSTRACT. The illustrations for The Natural History of the Rarer Lepidopterous Insects of Georgia (Smith & Abbot 1797) were repro-duced from drawings by artist-naturalist John Abbot, who also supplied life history data on each species. James Edward Smith edited Abbot'smanuscript and provided additional information for the book. Abbot's original manuscript entries for the 24 butterfly plates are transcribed andcompared with the corresponding published letterpress. The early stages and plants in Abbot's butterfly drawings are evaluated. Eighty copiesof the book were located in six countries. Dated watermarks on the plates are tabulated and plate captions are compared. Two different ver-sions of Plates 77 and 78 are figured and discussed. Abbot's notes for Plate 31 are reproduced for the first time. A memorandum about the bookby J. E. Smith is transcribed. Authorship attribution and past owners of the book are reviewed. At least one early printseller sold sets of plateswithout letterpress. To promote nomenclatural stability, a lectotype is designated for Papilio bathyllus J. E. Smith.

Additional key words: Dasychira, Thorybes, hostplants, lectotype, watermarks

Heralded by Rothschild & Jordan (1906) as “perhapsthe best lepidopterological work of the eighteenthcentury,” The Natural History of the RarerLepidopterous Insects of Georgia (Smith & Abbot 1797)was the first major work on North American insects. Ithas been praised, both for its scientific merit and thequality of its hand-colored plates. It was authored bytwo extraordinary naturalists. James Edward Smith(1759–1828) was an English doctor and eminentbotanist, who founded and served as the first Presidentof the Linnean Society of London. John Abbot(1751–ca. 1840) was an adventuring Englishman whodevoted his adult life to documenting the flora andfauna of an untamed southeastern North America.Abbot's groundbreaking artistry contributed to arevolution in entomological illustration. Regrettably,this was the only publication to acknowledge Abbot asan author.

Insects of Georgia was produced in two lavish foliovolumes, measuring roughly 31 cm x 41 cm (12 in x 16in). The entire title was cumbersome, but typical of theperiod: The Natural History of the Rarer LepidopterousInsects of Georgia, Including Their SystematicCharacters, the Particulars of Their SeveralMetamorphoses and the Plants on which They Feed.Collected from the Observations of Mr. John Abbot,Many Years Resident in that Country. Like othersignificant publications of its era, the letterpress (text)was provided in English and French in an effort toappeal to both British and continental European buyers.The French translation was allegedly provided by“Romet,” who also translated the 1794 edition of “TheAurelian” by Moses Harris (Hagen 1862–1863, Horn &

Schenkling 1928–1929). No expense was spared in theproduction of Insects of Georgia. The volumes wereprinted using the finest wove paper from England andincluded 104 masterfully etched and hand-coloredplates of life-size figures, 24 of which depictedbutterflies and 80 portrayed moths. The book wasexceptional in that it included figures of larvae, pupaeand hostplants of each species, not just rigid “cabinetstyle” illustrations of adult specimens typical of mostother early entomological works. The text wassubordinate and merely placed the images into thecontext of contemporary zoological wisdom. Smith'swritten descriptions were brief, relying on the figures toconvey the concept of each species. Americanentomologist Thaddeus W. Harris wrote in 1830 that thespecies were “easily identified by Abbott's figures,although from Smith's descriptions alone I could nothave made out half of them” (J. E. Le Contecorrespondence, American Philosophical Society). Thebook documented Abbot's observations in Georgia from1776 to 1792, but also some of his earlier findings inVirginia from 1773 to 1776.

Forty-three of the 57 Lepidoptera species describedby Smith in Insects of Georgia are still recognized,having endured over 200 years of taxonomic scrutiny. Inaddition, plates in Insects of Georgia inspired Johann C.Fabricius (1745–1808) to describe six new butterfly taxabased on the figured hostplants as identified in thebook. They are all replacement names for earlier taxamostly proposed by Fabricius himself, but were notpublished before his death in 1808. They remainedunpublished until a facsimile of this work was produced130 years later (Fabricius 1938).

Two centuries of critical appraisals have beenoverwhelmingly friendly to Insects of Georgia. Englishnaturalist William Jones was perhaps the first to assess

1 Research AssociateFlorida State Collection of ArthropodsDPI, FDACS, Gainesville, Florida 32614, USA

22 JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERISTS’ SOCIETY

the book in a letter to Smith dated 9 September 1797(Smith correspondence, Linnean Society of London;transcribed in Smith (1832)). After obtaining a gratiscopy that Smith arranged through a local bookseller,Jones wrote, “I took it under my arm, but soon found itsufficiently weighty…so I laboured abundantly with myload, in expectation of high gratification from thecontents when I should get home—and truly I was notdisappointed.” He added, “upon the whole, it has thethree great requisites to a modern publication,—goodletter, good paper, and showy plates.” Adrian H.Haworth, another of Smith's friends and later author ofLepidoptera Britannica (Haworth 1803–1828),described Insects of Georgia as “a magnificent work infolio” (Haworth 1807). English naturalist WilliamSwainson, who was seldom complimentary, praised thebook as “unquestionably one of the most beautiful andthe most valuable that this or any county can boast of.”He thought it was one of the two “best illustrativepublications upon Insects that have ever been given tothe world” (Swainson 1834). Duncan (1841) wrote, “ofthis magnificent publication it is not easy to speak interms of too high commendation.” Scudder (1888a)considered Insects of Georgia as “an epoch in thehistory of entomology in this country.” Meiners (1948)called it “a sumptuous work characteristic of fine bookprinting of its day.” Rare book firm H. P. Kraus ([1964])characterized it as a “splendid example of the Englishcolor-plate book in its best period.” Anthony H. Swannof the once renowned London bookseller Weldon &Wesley credited his taste for fine old books to a copy ofInsects of Georgia that the firm had in its showroom in1974. The bookseller described it as “the mostimportant illustrated work on American natural historyof the 18th century” (Swann 1996).

The most comprehensive review of Insects of Georgiawas published in January 1798 by an anonymous criticwho eloquently declared, “In this state of fluctuation,between the bursting of old, and the bubbling up of newtheories, the greatest service that can possibly berendered to the real progress of entomology, is thecollection of the produce of judicious researches; and inthis respect, the volumes before us are of the highestvalue. What is given here are not fragments ofknowledge, but the result of a series of finishedobservations. If the work allure and delight bysplendour of appearance, and uniform elegance ofexecution, it still more surprises and instructs by therichness and novelty of it's contents, the lucid order withwhich they are digested, the precision and vivacity ofthe designs, the modesty of method, and spirit ofphilosophy, that pervade the whole” (Anonymous 1798).

Like other contemporary works, Insects of Georgia

included a brief excerpt of poetry that conveyed asentiment about the subject matter. On the title page,Smith quoted two lines from a poem credited to “Mrs.Barbauld.” This poem was entitled “To a LADY, Withsome painted Flowers” and was published by AnnaLaetita Aikin (1773), who used her married name ofBarbauld for later editions. Smith revealed his botanicalinclinations by applying a poem about flowers toLepidoptera.

Insects of Georgia was initially offered in 1797 inprinter's boards for 20 guineas, equivalent to £21 (Bent1799, Rich 1846, Allibone 1886). This price had thesame “purchasing power” as £1,485 in 2002 (Officer2004). Bohn (1841) listed a slightly higher original priceof £25, 4s, but the £21 price is supported by acontemporary inscription in a copy of the book atTulane University that reads “published at 21£ bds[boards].” A typesetting error is probably responsiblefor the ridiculously low original sale price of £2, 2s givenby Anonymous (1798). A review of auction catalogs andbook price indexes revealed over 40 published sales ofthe book dating to as early as 1815. Eleven sets havebeen auctioned over the last 25 years. Owing to therecent popularity of early color plate books on naturalhistory, the value of Insects of Georgia has skyrocketedduring this period. A finely bound copy sold in 1988 for$55,000 US (McGrath 1988), then equivalent to£30,900 (Officer 2004). A unique copy with vellumplates was sold in 1997 for £50,000 (Leab 1998, Heath1999). Since the 1990s, butterflies and moths havebecome increasingly popular subjects of antiquarianartwork. Copies of Insects of Georgia are often brokenin order to sell the plates individually, while theletterpress is typically discarded or presented with theplates. Unfortunately, this practice is ensuring the lossof surviving intact volumes.

Despite its great modern value, there was littlemarket for this type of elaborate publication in Europeor America during the late eighteenth and earlynineteenth centuries. Swainson (1834) estimated thatnine out of ten illustrated books were sure to “entailpecuniary loss upon their projectors.” Indeed, publisherJames Edwards complained that he had lost money inthe production of Insects of Georgia and had no desireto publish a continuation of the work (1806 letter fromJohn Francillon to John Philips, British Library,London). There is evidence, however, that the bookwas reissued multiple times. Two plates exhibitdifferent states (versions) between issues, leading tomisconceptions about the identity of two moth taxadescribed in the book. Captions on the plates also vary.While researching the work of John Abbot, I becameintrigued by these and other discrepancies. I embarked


upon a study to better understand the enigmatic historyof this legendary publication and assess the scientificaccuracy of its butterfly illustrations. I herein presentthe results of this investigation and offer an extendedglimpse into the production of Insects of Georgia (Smith& Abbot 1797).

METHODS

Surviving copies of Insects of Georgia were locatedvia WorldCat of the Online Computer Library Center(OCLC), web-based library catalogs, miscellaneouspublished references, and other lepidopterists. Eachrepository was contacted and/or visited to obtainrelevant data. I personally examined the followingmaterials: 1) 15 copies of the book in the US and UK, 2)John Abbot's original drawings and manuscript notes forthe book deposited at The John Work Garrett Library ofThe Johns Hopkins University and the Linnean Societyof London, 3) Lepidoptera drawings by Abbot at TheNatural History Museum, London, as well as those atthe University of South Carolina and the University ofGeorgia, 4) the correspondence of J. E. Smith andWilliam Swainson at the Linnean Society of London and5) the John E. Le Conte correspondence at theAmerican Philosophical Society, Philadelphia. Iidentified the insects portrayed in the 24 originalbutterfly drawings for the book. Figures of larvae andpupae were evaluated for accuracy using writtendescriptions, line drawings, and photographs of livingspecimens for comparison. Digital photographs of thebutterfly plates were submitted to a qualified botanistfor accurate determinations of the depicted plants,which were then evaluated as valid hostplants.Specialists were contacted to verify the identities ofseveral butterfly and moth species. Type material wasexamined to confirm the identity of one species ofbutterfly. A digital scan of an old set of 73 individualplates was analyzed and compared with plates boundinto copies of the book.

RESULTS

Original drawings, notes, and a mutual friend.The nucleus of Insects of Georgia is a set of 104drawings and accompanying notes by John Abbot, wholeft London in 1773 and lived out the remainder of hislife in Virginia and Georgia. Abbot may have preparedthe drawings expressly for Smith, but it is still obscurehow Smith acquired them. It is doubtful that Abbotwould have personally sought Smith as a potentialauthor of a book about Lepidoptera. Smith wasprimarily a botanist who was only 14 years old whenAbbot departed London for America. Smith more likelyadmired Abbot's work at the shop of John Francillon

(1744–1816) and ordered a set of drawings for possiblepublication. Francillon was a London jeweler who soldAbbot's drawings and specimens to the naturalists ofBritain and Europe. Smith was acquainted withFrancillon and undoubtedly understood Francillon'sunique relationship with Abbot. The purchase of thedrawings through a third party is supported by theabsence of letters from Abbot among the Smithcorrespondence at the Linnean Society of London (seeDawson 1934). At first, Smith may have been interestedin the drawings solely for their botanical value. Uponreceiving them he no doubt realized their greatersignificance, stating in the preface, “Mr. Abbot'saccurate illustrations…render his farther remarks uponinsects extremely desirable.”

As asserted by Dow (1914), Abbot probably did notlearn of Insects of Georgia until sometime after itspublication. Smith is known to have presented gratiscopies of the book, but he did not even donate a copy tohis own Linnean Society until at least 1805 (Anonymous1807a). Abbot almost surely obtained a copy of Insectsof Georgia by about 1813, as he wrote Latin names fromthe book on a number of drawings he prepared for JohnE. Le Conte (Calhoun 2004). In 1816, Abbot directlyreferred to “Smith's Lepidoptera Insects of Georgia” ina letter to William Swainson (Swainson correspondence,Linnean Society of London).

The original drawings for Insects of Georgia werecompleted ca. 1783–1792. This was established from 1)Abbot's accompanying notes for Plate 18 that mentionfinding Urbanus proteus (L.) “plenty in the Year 1782,but have not seen any since,” and 2) 1793 is the earliestdate etched on the printed plates. As far as I coulddetermine, no lepidopterist had examined the originaldrawings or notes for Insects of Georgia since thepublication of the book.

Abbot's manuscript for these drawings is entitled, “ANatural History of the North American Insects.Particularly those of the State of Georgia. Including thechanges of the principal Insects of those parts, togetherwith the plant or flower each species feeds on, in theirNatural Colours. Drawn from Nature by John Abbotmany years Resident in those parts. With NotesScientific and Illustrative.” The manuscript waspurchased in 1829 by the Linnean Society of Londonalong with Smith's library and collections (Gage &Stearn 1988). It is comprised of 34 laid paper pagesmeasuring approximately 27 cm x 16.5 cm (10.6 in x 6.5in). Pages 9 and 10 are missing and were probablydiscarded by Smith as irrelevant to the book.Apparently aware that the drawings were going toSmith, Abbot wrote, “As I intended the following, Ithink you may still publish it as a separate work from any


other you are at present engaged in.” Referring to thespecies depicted in his drawings, Abbot continued, “Ihave not preferred to describe them in any scientificmanner, leaving that for you[r] superior Ablities [sic].”

It is generally believed that the biological notes inInsects of Georgia were copied verbatim from Abbot'smanuscript (e.g. Anonymous 1798, Harris [1950], 1972).In reality, Abbot's notes were extensively edited bySmith, who wrote in the introduction of the book thathe “digested” them into “some sort of style and order.”Smith inserted scientific names of plants and insects,which Abbot infrequently attempted because of hislimited access to scientific publications. Smith alsochanged some of Abbot's common names to be moreconsistent with European species. Although Smithwrote numerous changes directly on Abbot'smanuscript, the book shows many instances where theprose was further refined. A direct comparison ofAbbot's entries with the published versions revealsSmith's countless alterations (Table 1). Also included inthe sections derived from Abbot are references to theoccurrence of species outside Virginia and Georgia.These remarks could be used as proof that Abbot wasaware of such records and even that he receivedspecimens from those areas. For example, Anonymous(1798) stated that “Mr. Abbot informs us” that severalspecies “have been sometimes bred from the pupa inEngland.” The original manuscript reveals that all thesecomments were derived entirely from Smith.

Although Abbot briefly worked as a schoolteacher, hisgrammar and punctuation was notoriously uneven.Walton (1921) ascribed this to occasional lapses of a welleducated person, possibly caused by a lack of contactwith educated people for long periods of time or eventhe approach of senility. However, Abbot's spellingactually improved with age; he repeatedly employed theincorrect spelling “Catterpillers” in the notes acquiredby Smith, but this was later corrected in notes for othersets of drawings. His grammar also became morerefined over time, probably through his ongoingcorrespondence with leading naturalists of his day.Abbot considered his brief comments to be “rudenotes.” He was obviously more concerned withdocumenting his observations than being grammaticallycorrect.

The disposition of the original drawings for Insects ofGeorgia has been misunderstood for many years. Somethought they were the set of drawings once owned byThaddeus W. Harris. Harris obtained these drawingsfrom English lepidopterist Edward Doubleday who hadpurchased them from a London bookseller in June 1839(Scudder 1869). This set of 84 drawings of Coleopteraand Lepidoptera is dated 1830—far too late for use in

Insects of Georgia. Scudder (1888b) and Dow (1914)attributed these drawings to an “inferior copiest,” but Irecently examined them and found that their style isconsistent with Abbot's work and the title page iswritten in his hand. In 1852, French entomologistAchille Guenée mentioned Insects of Georgia andremarked, “I am happy to have in front of me theoriginal drawings of this beautiful work” (translationfrom French) (Guenée 1852). This set of drawings wasloaned to Guenée by fellow French lepidopterist JeanB. A. D. de Boisduval, who had used them for someplates in Boisduval & Le Conte (1829–[1837]). Thewhereabouts of these drawings is unknown, but Abbot'saccompanying notes are preserved at HarvardUniversity (see Calhoun 2004). In 1869, John EdwardGray of the British Museum wrote that “Sir JamesEdward Smith published a selection of the drawings ofLepidoptera” that were acquired by the museum in1818 (S. H. Scudder correspondence, HarvardUniversity). This claim was repeated in 1883 by AlbertGunther of the British Museum (Gilbert 1998) andagain by Weiss (1936). Kirby (1897) was less certain,suggesting that “Sir James Edward Smith may havetaken his selection (though apparently not in everycase)” from the drawings at the BMNH. Thesedrawings in London, now deposited at the EntomologyLibrary of The Natural History Museum, werecompleted by Abbot about 1792–1812 and later boundinto 17 volumes by John Francillon. Although theseillustrations include many duplicates of adults and earlystages in Insects of Georgia, none of the compositionsexactly match the plates in the book. Most recently,bookseller H. P. Kraus ([1964]) advertised a set ofdrawings as the originals for Insects of Georgia. Thesedrawings were purchased by the University of SouthCarolina, who reiterated their association with Insects ofGeorgia (Ridge 1966). Now preserved in the ThomasLibrary, a number of these drawings include penciledannotations, probably written by an agent of H. P.Kraus, that refer to plates in Insects of Georgia. Ananalysis of these drawings indicated that they wereactually reproduced in Boisduval & Le Conte(1829–[1837]) (Calhoun 2003, 2004).

The drawings reproduced in Insects of Georgia arepreserved at The John Work Garrett Library of TheJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. Theyare among Abbot's best, reflecting his strong desire toprove himself through their publication. Consistentwith his early work in America, Abbot figured theventral surfaces of butterflies by portraying adults inflight with fully outstretched wings. Sometime around1800 he settled into his more mature style of depictingadults in more natural closed-wing postures resting on

TABLE 1. Adult butterflies, early stages, and plants depicted in Insects of Georgia. Also a comparison of John Abbot's original manuscript en-tries against the edited letterpress (Abbot's grammar and spelling are preserved). Insect nomenclature follows Opler & Warren (2002). Adultinsect figures: D=dorsal, V=ventral, m=male, f=female. Early stages: L=larva, P=pupa, a=acceptable, u=unacceptable. B&L=Boisduval & LeConte (1829-[1837]). Status of figured hostplants (in brackets): C=confirmed, NC=needs confirmation, E=erroneous. Historical plant determinations: JES=J. E. Smith (in Smith & Abbot 1797); AWC=A. W. Chapman (in Scudder 1872). Asterisks (*) denote taxa originally described in the book.


Plate no. Figured adultsand early stages

Plant species and host status

Manuscript entry by J. Abbot

Edited book entry by J. E. Smith

1 Papilio polyxenes Fab.

Dm, Df, La, Pa

This is a very rare instance whereAbbot figured an immature larva.

Foeniculum vulgare L. (Apiaceae)[C]

JES: Anthum foeniculum L.AWC: “Garden Fennel”

“Rue” doubtless refers to thecultivated European Rutagraveolens L. (Rutaceae), which isa confirmed hostplant.

No. 2. Black & yellow Swallowtailed Butterfly. The Catterpillereats fennel & Rue. Changed intoChrys. 12th July. The Butterflywas bred the 20th Do. ThisButterfly is frequent in Virginia,but there is none in Georgia [seeentry for Plate 3].

PAPILIO TROILUS, BLACK ANDYELLOW SWALLOW-TAILBUTTERFLY. The caterpillar of thisspecies eats fennel and rue. It changedto a chrysalis July 12th, and the butterflycame forth on the 20th. It is morefrequent in Virginia than in Georgia.

[Smith's tentative identification of thisspecies as Papilio troilus was due to acommon misapplication of the originalwritten description of Papilio polyxenesFabricius, as well as that of Papilioasterius Fabricius, now treated as asubspecies of P. polyxenes.]

2 Papilio troilus L.

Dm, Df, Vm,La, Pa

Sassafras albidum (Nutt.) Nees(Lauraceae) [C]

JES: Laurus sassafras L.AWC: Sassafras officinale T.

Nees & Ederm.

No.83 The Black SassafrasSwallow tailed Butterfly. Feeds onSassafras, The Catterpiller folds aLeaf together in which it lives,changing his habitation as its foodfails round it-It has a remarkableScent, from which some calls themmellow Worms. Changed thebegining of Oct. bred 10th March.One in Virginia changed 13th Oct.bred 5th April. They are frequentabout the blossoms in the Spring,And as the Weather grows hotterare frequent about wet places inYards, fords of branches &c.

PAPILIO ILIONEUS, SASSAFRASBLACK SWALLOW-TAILBUTTERFLY. Its food is the sassafras,the caterpillar folding a leaf together foran habitation, and removing to a newone, as its sustenance around isexhausted. These caterpillars exhale aremarkable scent, whence they aresometimes called Mellow-worms.Having changed in the beginning ofOctober, they remained in the chrysalisstate till the 10th of March. One ofthem in Virginia changed October 13th,and the fly did not come out till April5th. This butterfly is frequent aboutblossoms in the spring; and as theweather grows hotter, resorts to wetplaces in court-yards, fords of rivulets,&c.

3 Battus philenor (L.)

Dm, Df, Vf. La, Pa

The synonym Papilio serpentariaeFabricius was derived from thefigured plant on this plate asidentified by Smith.

Aristolochia serpentaria L.

(Aristochiaceae) [C]

JES: Aristolochia serpentaria L.

AWC: Aristolochia serpentaria L.

No 84. The Black Snake rootSwallow tailed Butterfly. Feeds onBlack Snake root, Spun up by thetail 24th April changed 26th theButterfly was bred the 4th May,Another spun up 20th June,changed 21st bred 5th July, This isone of the common Butterflies, isfrequent on the peach blossoms &others in the Spring, & is likewiseplenty in Virginia-These 2 speciesof Catterpillers has retractile hornslike No 2 & seem a specificcharacter of the Swallow tailedtailed Genus-I think I mentionedthat No 2 is not in Georgia, butthis is a mistake having discoveredthem since [see entry for Plate 1].

PAPILIO PHILENOR. SNAKE-ROOTBLACK SWALLOWTAILBUTTERFLY. One of these caterpillarswas found feeding on the black snake-root, Aristolochia serpentaria, andattached itself to the branch by its tail,the 24th of April. Two days afterwards itchanged to a chrysalis, and the flyappeared May 4th. Another spun itselfup June 20th, changed 21st, and the flycame out on the 5th of July.

This is one of the most commonbutterflies, frequently seen on theblossoms of the peach and other trees inthe spring, and is no less plentiful inVirginia. The retractile horns of thiscaterpillar seem appropriated to theswallow-tail tribe.

plants, often casting shadows across their perches.Though generally considered masterful, the quality ofthe drawings that Abbot later produced was irregular.Most were very meticulous, while others weredownright clumsy (see Calhoun 2004, 2005).

The original drawings for Insects of Georgia were

rendered in watercolor and graphite, mostly on laidpaper, though ten were completed on cream coloredwove paper. Many sheets of laid paper bear undatedwatermarks of “Taylor,” or “I Taylor. These sheets weremanufactured by I. Taylor who produced paper from1746–1794 at the Basted Mill in West Kent, England






4 Eurytides marcellus (Cramer)

Dm, Vm, La, Pa

The synonym Papilio annonaeFabricius was derived from thefigured plant on this plate asidentified by Smith.

Asimina parviflora (Michx.) Dunalor A. triloba (L.) Dunal(Annonaceae) [C]

JES: Annona palustris L.AWC: Asimina triloba (L.) Dunal

“Highland” and “Swamp” pawpawscould refer to as many as fourspecies; Asimina parviflora, A.triloba, A. incarna (W. Bartram)Exell, and A. angustifolia Raf., allof which are confirmed hostplants.

No. 4. Black barred Swallow TailedButterfly. The Catterpiller feedsupon the Papaw, both speciesHighland, & Swamp Papaw. tieditself up 22d May. changed the24th Bred the 16th of June.Continues breeding all theSummer. One that changed inAutumn came out the 10th ofMarch following. Is not veryCommon but much more frequentthan in Virginia. Flies very Swift,frequents fruit blossoms, & oftensucks damp places in Yards atwhich time it may be easily Taken

PAPILIO AJAX. BLACK-BARREDSWALLOW-TAIL BUTTERFLY. Thecaterpillar feeds on the highland as wellas the swamp papaw; and having tieditself up the 22d of May, changed to achrysalis the 24th. The fly came outJune 16th. It continues breeding all thesummer. One that underwent itschange in autumn, came out the 10th ofMarch following. This species is notvery common in Georgia, though muchmore so than in Virginia. It flies veryswift, hovering about the blossoms offruit-trees, and often sucks damp placesin yards, when it may be easily taken.

[Due to extreme confusion over theidentity of Papilio ajax L., this name wassuppressed by ICZN Opinion 286 in1954.]

5 Phoebis sennae (L.)

Dm, Df, Vf, La, Pa

B&L Pl. 24 figured duplicate larvaand pupa.

Chamaecrista fasciculata (Micx.)Greene (Fabaceae) [C]

JES: Cassia chamae-crista L.AWC: Cassia marilandica L.

87. American Brimstone. Feeds onthe Flower figured, Spun up 30thAugt changed 31st bred 10th Sepr

Another Spun up 23d Sepr.Changed 24th Bred 6th Oct. TheCatterpiller is not common, It islikewise in Virginia.

PAPILIO EUBULE. AMERICANBRIMSTONE BUTTERFLY. Thecaterpillar feeds on this species of cassia.One of them spun itself up the 30th ofAugust, changed the next day, and theperfect insect appeared September10th. Another spun on the 23d ofSeptember, changed the 24th, and cameout the 6th of October. This is not acommon caterpillar, though foundlikewise in Virginia.

6 Danaus plexippus (L.)

Dm, Vm, La, Pa

The synonym Euploea curassavicaeFabricius was derived from thefigured plant on this plate asidentified by Smith (see text).

Asclepias tuberosa L(Apocynaceae) [C]

JES: Asclepias curassavica L. AWC: Asclepias tuberosa L.

“(not curassavica)”

No 1. Large black & Orangestreaked Butterfly. ThisCatterpiller eats the Butterflyweed. the 24th April it tied itselfup by the tail, & the 25th changedinto Chrysalis. The 11th of Maythe Butterfly came out. ThisButterfly is not very Common.

PAPILIO ARCHIPPUS. LARGEBLACK AND ORANGE BUTTERFLY.This caterpillar eats the butterfly weed,Asclepias curassavica. On the 24th ofApril it suspended itself by the tail;changed to a chrysalis next day, and onthe 11th of May the butterfly came out.It is not a very common species

7 Danaus gilippus (Cramer)

Dm, Df, Vm, La, Pa


Asclepias amplexicaulis Sm.(Apocynaceae)* [C]

JES: Asclepias amplexicaulis *Sm.

AWC: Asclepias obtusifoliaMichx.

No 85. The Chesnut Butterfly.Feeds on The flower figured,Changed 18th June, Bred 26th Isnot very Common & I believe isnot in Virginia

PAPILIO GILIPPUS. CHESNUT-COLOURED BUTTERFLY. Afterfeeding on the plant here represented,the caterpillar changed to a chrysalisJune 18th, and the butterfly came forththe 26th. It is not very common inGeorgia, and is I believe, not found inVirginia.

8 Junonia coenia (Hübner)

Df, Vm, La, Pa

The name Cynthia antirrhiniFabricius was derived from thefigured plant on this plate asidentified by Smith; it should beconsidered a synonym of J. coenia,not Junonia orythia (L.).

Linaria canadensis (L.) Chaz.(Veronicaceae) [C]

JES: Antirrhinum canadense L.AWC: Linaria canadensis (L.)

Chaz.

No 6. American Peacock Butterfly.Feeds upon the Flower in theDrawingb. Tied itself up 16thApril changed the 18th Bred 4thMay. Continues breeding 'till latein in Autumnc, This sort iscommon frequents damp places.bThis flower grows in Corn fieldsin the Spring. Ought to be of abrighter purple cIt is a commonsaying here Spring & fall, neverAutumn .

PAPILIO ORYTHIA. AMERICANPEACOCK BUTTERFLY. Itscaterpillar eats the plant hererepresented, which grows plentifully incornfields in the spring. One of themsuspended itself April 16th, changed the18th, and became a butterfly May 4th.This species continues breeding till latein the autumn, and is very common,frequenting damp places.

[Smith incorrectly considered thisspecies to be synonymous with the Asianbutterfly, J. orythia]

TABLE 1. continued






9 Vanessa virginiensis (Drury)

Df, Vf, La, Pa

The synonym Cynthia gnaphaliiFabricius was derived from thefigured plant on this plate asidentified by Smith.

Pseudognaphalium obtusifolium(L.) Hilliard & B. L. Burtt(Asteraceae) [C]

JES: Gnaphalium obtusifolium L.AWC: Gnaphalium polycephalum

Michx.

No 5. American Painted LadyButterfly. Feeds upon Everlasting.Tied itself up 25th April. Changedthe 26th Bred 8th May. Continuesbreeding all the Summer. One thatchanged the 7th May was bred the16th. Caterpillers folds & spinsthe leaves together like the Englishsort. This Butterfly is frequent,often sucks damp places abouthouses.

PAPILIO HUNTERA. AMERICANPAINTED LADY-BUTTERFLY. Feedsupon the everlasting. One caterpillartied itself up the 25th of April, changedthe 26th, came forth a fly the 8th of May.Another that did not change till the 7thof May, came out the 16th. Thiscaterpillar folds and spins the leavestogether like that of the English Painted-Lady, P. Cardui. It continues breedingduring the summer, and is verycommonly seen sucking up moisturefrom damp places near houses

10 Limenitis arthemis (Drury) (ssp. B. a. astyanax (Fab.))

Dm, Df, Vf, La, Pa

Vaccinium sp., probablystamineum L. (Ericaceae) [C]

JES: Vaccinium stamineum L.AWC: Vaccinium stamineum L.

Scudder (1888-1889) thoughtAbbot's “Wild Gooseberry” was aspecies of Ribes L.(Grossulariaceae), but it wasprobably Abbot's name for thedepicted Vaccinium. “WildCherry” (Prunus sp.) (Rosaceae)and “Willow” (Salix sp.)(Salicaceae) are confirmedhostplants.

No 53. Black and Blue AdmirableButterfly, The Catterpiller wastaken the begining of June, feedingon the Wild Gooseberry, It alsoeats Wild Cherry, and Willow.The 8th June it Spun up by the tail,and the 9th changed intoChrysalis, The Butterfly was bredthe 18th This Butterfly likewisebreeds early in the Spring, havingtaken them 19th April. It is also inVirginia, but neither the Butterflyor Catterpiller is very Common.Note the figure of the Catterpillermight be a size larger.

PAPILIO URSULA. BLACK ANDBLUE ADMIRABLE BUTTERFLY.This caterpillar was taken early in Junefeeding on the wild gooseberry. It alsoeats the wild cherry and willow. On the8th of June it suspended itself by the tail,and changed to a chrysalis on the 9th.The butterfly appeared on the 18th.This species also comes out of thechrysalis early in the spring; I have takenit on the 19th of April. It is not verycommon either in the larva or perfectstate, though found in Virginia as well asin Georgia. The caterpillar in the plateis somewhat under the full size.

11 Polygonia interrogationis (Fab.)

Dm, Vm, La, Pa


The pronounced falcate forewingtips of the adults are moreconsistent with the overwinteringform of the species, while theoverall coloring is more typical ofthe summer form 'umbrosa'.Lintner (1869) also noted thisdisparity on the published plate.

The synonym Cynthia tiliaeFabricius was derived from thefigured plant on this plate asidentified by Smith (see text).Scudder (1870) described Graptacrameri, based in part on theadults figured on this plate.

Tilia americana L. (Malvaceae)[NC]

JES: Tilia alba, Ait. Hort. Kew.AWC: Tilia pubescens Aiton

May be a valid captive rearing, butAbbot did not figure or mentionTilia as a host of this species in hislater drawings. “Warhew” isdoubtless a misspelling of Wahoo,a colloquial name for Tilia. “Limetree” is also a common name forspecies of Tilia. “Elm” (Ulmus sp.)(Ulmaceae) and “Sugar berry”(Celtis sp.) (Ulmaceae) areconfirmed hostplants.

86. American Comma. Feeds onthe Warhew+ figured, Elm, &Sugar berry, Spun up 29th May,changed 30th Bred 7th June,Frequents Swamps & Oak Woodsbut is not very Common, TheButterfly lives all the Winter &comes forth very early in theSpring, And is likewise in Virginia.+If this was not always a low Bushor Shrub, I should take it for theLime tree.

PAPILIO C. AUREUM. AMERICANCOMMA BUTTERFLY. This feedsupon the plant called Warhew, which isvery like the European lime-tree, exceptin being always a low bush or shrub; iteats also the sugar berry and the elm. Itsuspended itself by the tail May 29th,changed 30th, appeared on the wingJune 7th. This species frequents swampsand oak woods, but is not very common.The butterfly lives all the winter inplaces of shelter, coming forth very earlyin the spring. It occurs likewise inVirginia.

[Smith hesitantly associated this specieswith the Old World Polygonia c-aureum(L.), something he reconsidered in 1798;see Table 4.]

12 Agraulis vanillae (L.)

Dm, Df, Vm, La, Pa

Passiflora incarnata L.(Passifloraceae) [C]

JES: Passiflora incarnata L.AWC: Passiflora incarnata L.

No 3. Silver spotted FrittilaryButterfly. This Catterpiller feedsupon the Maycock(a). Tied itself upby by the tail 8th July, changedinto Chrysalis the 9th Bred the17th. This species is sometimesfrequent, & some Years rare to bemet with. It is not in Virginia. aIsnot this the passion flower, whenripe the pod is full of seeds,surrounded with a pale yellowishpulp. Tastes like an orange, butfainter is eaten by many people, Isa troublesome weed where it oncegets any footing.

PAPILIO PASSIFLORAE. GREATAMERICAN FRITILLARY. One ofthese caterpillars tied itself up by the tailJuly 8th, changed to a chrysalis 9th,came forth in its perfect state 17th. Thisspecies is sometimes plentiful, but insome years very rare. It is not inVirginia. Its food is the maycock,Passiflora incarnata, the pod of whichwhen ripe is full of seeds surroundedwith pale yellowish pulp, tasting like anorange, but fainter, and is eaten by manypeople. The plant is a troublesome weedwhen it gets any footing

TABLE 1. continued






13 Neonympha areolatus (J. E.Smith)*

Dm, Df, Vf, La, Pa

The larva on some published platesis too brown. B&L Pl. 63 figuredduplicate larva and pupa.

The adults in the original drawing(and duplicate figures in anotherAbbot drawing at The NaturalHistory Museum, London) appearto possess some characteristics thatdefine the phenotype recognizedby Gatrelle (1999) as the species N.helicta (Hübner).

Sorghastrum secundum (Elliott)Nash (Poaceae) [NC]

JES: Andropogon nutans L.AWC: “Grass”

Probably a natural hostplant orcaptive rearing.

88. Blue spotted Ringlet. Feeds onthe Grass figured Changed 22dMay, bred 1st June. This Butterflyfrequents the sides of Branches (orRivulets) & is not in Virginia.

PAPILIO AREOLATUS. BLUE-SPOTRINGLET BUTTERFLY. Feeds on theAndropogon nutans, but has not beenobserved in Virginia, though this grassgrows there. The caterpillar changedMay 22d, the fly appeared June 1st. Itfrequents the sides of rivulets, orbranches, as they are called in America.

14 Satyrium favonius (J. E. Smith)*

Dm, Df, Vf, La, Pa

Quercus laevis Walter (Fagaceae)[NC]

JES: Quercus rubra L.AWC: Quercus nigra L.

Smith questioned his identificationof the depicted oak, writing onAbbot's original drawing, “rubra?”Satyrium favonius is an oak-feeder,thus Q. laevis is probably a naturalhostplant.

No 9. American brown Hair StreakButterfly. Feeds upon the forkedleaf Black Jack Oak. Changed 28thApril, bred the 13th May. Thisspecies is not very Common.

PAPILIO FAVONIUS. AMERICANBROWN HAIR-STEAK BUTTERFLY.Feeds on the forked leaved black jack,and other oaks. Changed April 28, cameout in the perfect state the 13th of May.It is not a very common species.

15 Celastrina neglecta(W. H. Edwards)

Dm, Df, Vf, La, Pa

The larva in the book of vellumplates is more detailed thanAbbot's original; John Harrisprobably based this rendition onthe larva of the Old WorldCelastrina argiolus (L.) asidentified by Smith.

Erythrina herbacea L. (Fabaceae)[C]

JES: Erythrina herbacea L.AWC: Erythrina herbacea L.

“Red Root, or redshank” surelyrefers to the confirmed hostplantof Ceanothus americanus L.(Rhamnaceae). For otherdrawings, Abbot identified “RedRoot or redshank” as the host ofErynnis martialis (Scudder), whichalso feeds on Ceonothus.

No 59. Small Blue Butterfly. TheCatterpiller was taken on the Wildkind of kidney Bean figured, It alsofeeds on Red Root, or redshank,This Catterpiller is rare to be metwith & seems to be of the sameGenus with the hair Streaks, Itchanged 16th June, Bred 25thJune, The Butterfly is frequent inGeorgia as well as Virginia.

PAPILIO ARGIOLUS. LITTLE BLUEARGUS BUTTERFLY. The caterpillarwas taken feeding on the plant hererepresented; it also eats the red root orred shank, but is rarely to be met with,though the butterfly is often seen bothin Georgia and Virginia. Its first changetook place on the 16th of June, and thefly appeared nine days afterwards.

[Smith's identification of this species asC.argiolus is reasonable, given thatsimilar New World species had yet to berecognized and described.]

16 Wallengrenia otho (J. E. Smith)*

Dm, Df, Vm, Lu, Pa

The larva is not consistent with thisspecies or the closely related W.egeremet (Scudder). B&L Pl. 77figured duplicate larva and pupa

Sisyrinchium sp. (Iridaceae) [E]

JES: Sisyrinchium bermudiana L.AWC: Sisyrinchium anceps Cav

“Crabgrass” may refer to variousgrasses, not only the confirmedhostplant of Digitaria sanguinalis(L.) Scop. (Poaceae). Smithreferred to its synonym, Panicumsanguinale.

No 58. Brown & Yellow SkipperButterfly. The Catterpiller wastaken in August, upon the kind ofGrass figured, but is most frequenton Crab Grass. It spun the Grasstogether for a house like the rest, Itspun up in the Grass 19th August,changed the 20th, Bred 30th Do.It is also in Virginia And theButterfly is pretty common onBlossoms.

PAPILIO OTHO. BROWN ANDYELLOW SKIPPER BUTTERFLY.This caterpillar was taken upon theSisyrinchium, but is most frequent oncrab grass (Panicum sanguinale). Onthe 19th of August it spun the leavestogether for a shelter, like the rest of thistribe, changed the next day, and on the30th the butterfly came forth. It is also anative of Virginia, and the fly is notuncommon on various kinds of blossoms

17 Atrytone arogos (Boisduval & Le Conte)

Dm, Df, Vm, La, Pa

Echinochloa crusgalli (L.)(Poaceae) [NC]

JES: Panicum crus-galli L.AWC: Panicum crus-galli L.

Probably a natural hostplant orcaptive rearing.

(continued on next page)

89. Brown bordered YellowSkipper. Feeds on the Grassfigured, & Buffalo Grass. theWorms like the rest of the Skippersfolds the grass together forSecurity. Spun up 25th July,changed the 27th Bred 4th August.I met with this Species in the PineWoods on the North side of BriarCreek near Mill Town plantation,And have not yet seen it any whereelse.


PAPILIO VITELLIUS. BROWN-BORDERED YELLOW SKIPPERBUTTERFLY. Feeds on the panic-grassfigured, and on the buffalo-grass, atlength folding the leaves together forprotection. It spun itself up July 25,changed 27, came forth in its wingedstate August 4. This species has beenfound only in the pine woods on thenorth side of Briar Creek, near MillTown plantation.


TABLE 1. continued


Plateno.

Figured adultsand early stages




17

continued

“Buffalo Grass” may refer to anynumber of grasses, not necessarilyBuchloe dactyloides (Nutt.)(Poaceae), which is not a knownhostplant.

[Mill Town Plantation was locatedin Georgia along the northeast sideof Briar Creek in Screven County,just south of the Burke Countyline. It is now the site of MillhavenPlantation, the largest family-owned plantation east of theMississippi River.]

[Smith's improper association of thisspecies with Hesperia vitellius Fabriciusled to nomenclatural confusion thatlasted for over a century. Boisduval &Le Conte (1829-[1837]) later describedHesperia arogos, but they did notinclude letterpress for their figures,which could have corrected Smith'sprevious error.]

18 Urbanus proteus (L.)

Dm, Vm, La, Pa


Centrosema virginianum (L.)Benth. (Fabaceae) [C]

JES: Clitoria mariana L.AWC: Clitoria mariana L.

“Wild Pea Vine” apparently refersto C. virginianum. “Kidney beans”is a name that Abbot used forvarious species of Fabaceae

No 7. Swallow tailed SkipperButterfly. The Catterpiller of thisrare species I discovered by seeingthe Butterfly lay some Eggs uponthe Wild Pea Vine. TheCatterpillers of all the species ofSkippers folds the leaves togetherfor safety like the EnglishAdmirable, which makes them noteasy to be discovered, The 2d ofJuly it spun up in the leaves, &changed into a Chrysalis the 4thcovered with a bluish whitepowder like the Red Underwing.Bred 18th Augt. Only breeds inAutumn. I afterwards discoveredsome of the Catterpillers on thespecies of the Kidney beans. ThisButterfly was plenty in the Year1782, but have not seen any since.

[This is the only entry among thesenotes that refers to a specific year.]

PAPILIO PROTEUS. SWALLOW-TAILED SKIPPER BUTTERFLY. Thecaterpillar of this rare species Idiscovered by seeing the butterfly laysome eggs upon the wild pea-vine, forthe caterpillars of all the species ofSkippers fold the leaves together forsafety (like the English Admirable, P.Atalanta) which makes them not easy tobe discovered. On the 2d of July it spunitself up in the leaves, and on the 4thchanged to a chrysalis covered with abluish white powder, as in the RedUnderwing. The fly appeared August 18.It breeds in autumn only. I afterwardsdiscovered some of these caterpillars onanother plant of the pea or bean tribe.This butterfly was plentiful in the year1782, but I have not since met with it.

19 Epargyreus clarus (Cramer)

Df, Vm, La, Pa


Robinia hispida L. (Fabaceae) [C]

JES: Robinia pseudo-acacia L.AWC: Robinia pseudo-acacia L.

Identified by Scudder (1888-1889)as Robinia viscosa Vent.

No 54. Great Silver spottedSkipper Butterfly, The Catterpillerwas taken feeding on the WildLocust the latter end of August, Itspins the leaves together for ahouse to secure itself from Birds,&c. like the rest of the Genus, The5th of Sepr it spun up in theLeaves, & changed the 7th intoChrysalis, the Butterfly was bredthe 10th of April following. It isalso in Virginia but is not veryCommon.

PAPILIO TITYRUS. GREAT SILVER-SPOTTED SKIPPER BUTTERFLY.This caterpillar was taken feeding on thewild locust tree the latter end of August.It spins the leaves together to secureitself from birds, &c. like the rest of thistribe. On the 5th of September it spunup in the leaves, and became a chrysalistwo days after. The butterfly wasproduced the 10th of April following. Itis also a native of Virginia, but not verycommon.

20 Achalarus lyciades (Geyer)

Df, Vf, La, Pa

The larva depicts a rosy form, butthe coloration is too vivid on thepublished plates. B&L Pl. 71figured duplicate larva and pupa.John Francillon used theunpublished name “Papiliohedysarum” to identify an Abbotdrawing of this species at TheNatural History Museum, London;it was based on Smith's hostplantname on Plate 20 in Insects ofGeorgia.

Desmodium sp., possiblylaevigatum (Nutt.) DC. (Fabaceae)[C]

JES: Hedysarum paniculatum L.AWC: Desmodium paniculatum(L.) DC

No 8. White bordered SkipperButterfly. Feeds upon the Beggarslice (so called from the seedssticking to people's Clothes)changed 10th July. Bred 23d. Thisspecies is common & Continuesbreeding most part of the Summer.

PAPILIO LYCIDAS. WHITE-BORDERED SKIPPER BUTTERFLY.Feeds on the Hedysarum called Beggar'slice, from the seeds sticking to people'sclothes. It changed to a chrysalis July 10,and to a butterfly 23d. This is a commonspecies, and continues breeding mostpart of the summer.

TABLE 1. continued


Plateno.

Figured adultsand early stages




21 Erynnis brizo (Boisduval & LeConte) (see text)

Dm

Erynnis horatius (Scudder &Burgess) or E. juvenalis (Fabricius)

Df

The larvae and pupa are basicallyacceptable for Erynnis, but notnecessarily these species. B&L Pl.66 figured duplicate larva andpupa.

Galactia volubilis (L.) Britton(Fabaceae) [E]

JES: Glycine elliptica*AWC: Galactia pilosa Nutt.

“Wild Indigo” (Baptisia sp.) is alsoan erroneous hostplant for theseErynnis species (see text).

No 57. Dingy Skipper Butterfly,Was taken on the Vine that theCatterpillar is figured Upon, Itlikewise feeds on the Wild Indigo&c. & folds itself in the leaves-itspun up 26th July in the leaveschanged 27th And was bred the 5August. Some that spun up in Sep.& Oct. was bred 22d Marchfollowing; This is also in Virginia,The Butterfly is very Common inthe Spring on Peach & plumBlossoms, It will likewise come &suck Damp places about the housesin the Yards-And the edges ofrunning streams in the Roads &c.

PAPILIO JUVENALIS. DINGYSKIPPER BUTTERFLY. Feeds notonly on the plant here represented, butalso on others of the same class, andfolds itself up in the leaves, in whichsituation one of them spun itself up July26, changed 27, and came out August 5.Some that enclosed themselves inSeptember and October did not comeout till the 22d of March following. Thesame insect is a native of Virginia, and inits winged state is very common in thespring on peach and plum blossoms. Itwill also come and suck damp places inthe yards about houses, and the marginsof running streams in the roads.

22 Thorybes bathyllus (J. E. Smith)*

Dm

Thorybes confusis Bell (see text)

Df, Vf

The larva is not consistent with thisspecies; it most closely resemblesthe larva of A. lyciades. In fact,Abbot later applied this samefigure to a drawing of A. lyciades,now at The Natural HistoryMuseum, London. The pupa isacceptable for Thorybes.

Rhynchosia tomentosa (L.) Hook.& Arn. (Fabaceae) [C]

JES: Glycine reticulata Swartz AWC: Rhynchosia tomentosa (L.)Hook. & Arn.

Rhynchosia tomentosa is aconfirmed hostplant of T. bathyllusand, although unrecorded,probably also of T. confusis.

No 55. Brown Skipper Butterfly.This Catterpiller feeds on the WildBean, It folds the leaves togetherfor a retreat. The SkipperCatterpillers, oftentimes to securethemselves the better, spins theleaves together, to hide itself in, ofsome other plant that grows next tothat they feed in, Which makesthem the harder to find. It spun upin the leaves & changed the 11th ofJune, The Butterfly came out ofChrysalis the 24th It is also inVirginia, and is one of theCommonest sorts of the Skippers.

PAPILIO BATHYLLUS. BROWNSKIPPER BUTTERFLY. Thiscaterpillar feeds on the wild bean hererepresented, and folds the leavestogether for a retreat. The skippercaterpillars, to conceal themselves thebetter, generally attach together with aweb the leaves of some other plantgrowing next to that they feed on, whichrenders them difficult to be met with.This species changed the 11th of June.The butterfly liberated itself the 24th. Itoccurs also in Virginia, and is one of themost common of its tribe.

23 Lerema accius (J. E. Smith)*

Dm, Df, Vf, La, Pa

Wisteria frutescens (L.) Poir.(Fabaceae) [E]

JES: Glycine frutescens L.AWC: Wisteria frutescens (L.)

Poir.

“Indian Corn” (Zea mays L.)(Poaceae) is a confirmed hostplant(see text).

No 56. Brown Corn SkipperButterfly. Was taken on the Vinethat the Catterpillar is figuredUpon in June, but is mostcommonly to be met with on theIndian Corn blades which it spins& folds over itself for its security,in which it is often met withchanged into Chrysalis, It changedthe 21st June Bred 29th Do. It isalso in Virginia but is not near socommon as the last described.

PAPILIO ACCIUS. BROWN CORNSKIPPER BUTTERFLY. Brown CornSkipper Butterfly. This was taken inJune on the beautiful climbing shrubhere delineated, but is most commonlyto be met with in the chrysalis state onthe blades of Indian corn, Zea Mays, inwhich it enfolds itself. It changed the21st of June, and came out the 29th. It isalso found in Virginia, but is not near socommon as the last described.

24 Pholisora catullus (Fab.)

Dm, Df, Vf, La, Pa

Monarda punctata L. (Lamiaceae)[E]

JES: Monarda punctata L.AWC: Monarda punctata L.

“Rignum” is an old colloquial namefor Monarda punctata. “Careless”(Amaranthus L.) and “LambsQuarter” (Chenopodium L.) areconfirmed hostplants (see text).

90. Black Skipper. Feeds onRignum, Common and redCareless, & Lambs Quarter, foldsthe leaves together, Spun up in theLeaves, 18th June Bred 26th Do.Another Spun up 14 Sep &Changed 29th July bred 5thAugust, Spun up 14th Sep, Bredmiddle March, This Butterflyfrequents Gardens & fields amongMelon Blossoms &c. & is also inVirginia.

PAPILIO CATULLUS. BLACKSKIPPER BUTTERFLY. Black SkipperButterfly. Feeds on Monarda punctata,&c. spinning itself up in the foldedleaves, in which state one of thesecaterpillars changed the 18th of June,and appeared on the wing the 26th;another spun and changed July 29, andcame out the 5th of August, and a thirdwhich enclosed itself September 14,appeared in the middle of March. Thebutterfly frequents gardens and fieldsamong melon blossoms, and is also foundin Virginia.

TABLE 1. continued


(Churchill 1935, Balston 1992). Other unidentified andundated watermarks include a Britannia seal with theinitials “WK” and a large Strasburg bend and lily patternsubtended by the initials “GR.” These papers areundoubtedly also of English origin. Producing qualitydrawings in America was not without its challenges. Inthe “Introductory Notes” of his manuscript used forInsects of Georgia, Abbot wrote about the difficulties inmixing paints that retained their colors over time. Hecomplained, “In some of my first Drawings the greensare turned blackish, owing to my then using Sap Green,I now quite discard it, & use a mixture of Gum Bouge &Indigo, but I even find that this fades some.” Headmitted that he fell “much short of the Originals forwant of sufficient bright colours.”

After their duplication in Insects of Georgia, all 104original drawings were bound with letterpress intovolumes of the book where they replaced the printedplates. In preparation for their insertion into thesevolumes, the drawings were trimmed to measureapproximately 23 cm × 32 cm. Windows were cut intoblank sheets of wove paper to within 3 mm of thedrawing's dimensions. The drawings were then pastedover the windows with a nearly imperceptible seam.Page thickness was thereby minimized and bothsurfaces of each drawing remained visible. Some of thebacking papers bear undated “J Whatman” watermarks(see below).

Smith penciled names and other annotations on manyof the drawings, indicating that some of his names were“new.” A large number of his inscriptions were latererased or trimmed off. In some cases, Smith instructedthe engraver to alter figures for the published plates.On the original drawing for Plate 8, Smith inscribed,“Mr. Abbot writes this flower ought to be of a brighterpurple.” This statement was derived from Abbot'smanuscript entry for this drawing (Table 1). Manydrawings have the corresponding plate numbers writtenin pencil in the upper right corner. The bookbinderabsentmindedly inserted the drawings for Plates 46 and53 upside-down.

Two additional drawings by Abbot were inserted intothe second volume. They are clearly not part of thesame set and may have been acquired at a later date.Smith recorded these drawings as “105” and “106” onthe last page of Abbot's notes, adding “No Description.”The first drawing includes figures of adults, larva, pupa,and a plant. Although the adults in the drawing wereportrayed as the same species, the male is Erynnis brizo(Boisduval & Le Conte) and the female is eitherErynnis juvenalis (Fabricius) or more likely Erynnishoratius (Scudder & Burgess). They are associated witha sprig of what appears to be Baptisia tinctoria (L.) R.

Br., an unlikely leguminous hostplant for these oak-feeding species of Erynnis. The figures of adults andearly stages are the same as those in Abbot's originaldrawing for Plate 21 in Insects of Georgia. In referenceto the drawing for Plate 21, Smith wrote on theunpublished drawing, “Same flies as 57 & thereforeneed not be engraved.” Abbot often duplicated entiredrawings or individual figures (Calhoun 2003, 2004,2005). The second unpublished drawing depicts twofigures of adult geometrid moths in a vertical formatwithout early stages or a plant. The top figure isprobably a male Euchleana obtusaria (Hübner). Thebottom figure is a male Prochoerodes lineola (Goeze) (=transversata (Drury)). Written in Abbot's hand abovethe figures are the collection dates of “Sep 30.” and“Mar.”

Perhaps as part of their agreement, publisher JamesEdwards (1720–1816) acquired the original drawingsfrom Smith. It was most likely Edwards who boundthem with letterpress into volumes of the book. On aflyleaf in the first volume Edwards wrote, “Theseoriginal drawings were made in America from natureduring a residence of nearly 21 years.” This obviouslyrefers to Abbot's residency in Georgia, which began in1776, 21 years before the publication of Insects ofGeorgia. Edwards ultimately presented these volumesto Mariamne (Maria Anne) Johnes (1784–1811).Edwards was a friend of her father, Thomas Johnes,publishing books for him and even lending money whennecessary (Inglis-Jones 1950, Moore-Colyer 1992). TheJohnes estate of Hafod (pronounced “Havod”) waslocated twelve miles southeast of Aberystwyth,Cardiganshire, Wales.

On the verso of the English title page in the firstvolume, Edwards inscribed in ink, “To Miss Johnes intestimony of sincere regard from J. Edwards.” Tipped-in on the same page is a three-page letter to Mariamnefrom her father. Addressed “Pall Mall Saturday,”Thomas Johnes was apparently visiting London wherehe often stayed with Edwards in his Pall Mall home(Moore-Colyer 1992). Johnes wrote, “Mr. Edwards hasjust given you the most magnificent & beautiful presentI have seen—nothing less than the original drawings ofthe American Insects.” At the end of the letter, Johnesadded, “Mr. Edwards sends his kind compts[compliments].” The letter implies that Edwardspresented the volumes for Mariamne's birthday, thoughthey had not met. Although the letter is undated,Johnes remarked that he had “heard that the Duke andDuchess of Rutland are on the point of a separation!!This not many months since they were married.” JohnHenry Manners, 5th Duke of Rutland (1778–1857), wasmarried on 22 April 1799 (Lundy 2004), thus these


volumes were probably presented for Mariamne's 15thbirthday, around 30 June 1799. Mariamne sufferedfrom increasingly serious physical disorders as she grewolder, developing spinal disease by the time she waseleven. Edwards probably presented the volumes inhopes of lifting the spirits of his friend's ailing daughter.Mariamne was then struggling to walk without crutchesand drinking “sulphurous” water as therapy (letter dated23 June 1799 from T. Johnes to J. E. Smith, LinneanSociety of London).

Some of the original drawings are badly stained frommildew. This damage was present prior to theirplacement into the volumes and may have occurredduring their shipboard journey to England. Anengraved black and white portrait of T. Johnes, dated1810 and measuring 25.5 cm × 34 cm (10 in × 13.4 in),is pasted on the inside cover of the first volume. It mayhave been added by Mariamne before she died in 1811.Much of the main house at Hafod, including the bulk ofThomas Johnes' extensive library, perished in a fire in1807 (Moore-Colyer 1992). These volumes must havebeen among the precious effects that were spared.They were likely shelved in Mariamne's study and not inthe library wing of the house. Some of Mariamne'sother books are currently deposited at the NationalLibrary of Wales.

Smith also knew the Johnes family. He met ThomasJohnes around 1793 (Moore-Colyer 1992) and laterpublished a short book in which he espoused theestate's beauty and botanical richness (Smith 1810).Smith became acquainted with Mariamne when hevisited Hafod in August of 1795 (Smith 1832). Upontheir first meeting, Smith was amazed by the younggirl's abilities. In 1795, Smith wrote, “Miss Johnes,though not above ten years of age, has taken awonderful turn for botany and entomology” (Smithcorrespondence, Linnean Society of London). Despitetheir great age difference, they became very closefriends, exchanging letters that included drawings andspecimens of local plants and insects. Some of theseplant specimens are still contained in small foldedpieces of paper among the Smith correspondence at theLinnean Society. In June 1796 Mariamne thankedSmith for sending an insect cabinet already filled withinsects. A year later, Smith dedicated Insects of Georgiato the teenage girl. He wrote, “Miss Johnes, ofHafod…When you look over this book, it will remindyou of many hours we have passed together, in thepractical investigation of similar objects to those whichit illustrates.” Mariamne died only 14 years after thepublication of Insects of Georgia at the age of 27.

The volumes with the original drawings were likelyleft behind at Hafod when Mariamne's parents

departed the estate in 1815 to reside at Langstone CliffCottage, Devon, England. It was here that ThomasJohnes died the following year. After his death, hiswidow expressed her gratitude to Smith; “You havebeen the friend of my beloved husband. The friend andkind instructor of my darling daughter” (Smithcorrespondence, Linnean Society of London). Soonafter, Jane Johnes left Hafod, leaving all its contents,never to return. Hafod was neglected until 1832, whenit was purchased by the very unpopular Henry Pelham,4th Duke of Newcastle. When the Duke moved fromHafod in 1846, he took nearly everything of value withhim, including the bulk of the books that the Johnesfamily owned. Some of these items were sent toLondon for sale (Inglis-Jones 1950, Moore-Colyer1992). Mariamne's copy of Insects of Georgia wasevidently disposed of at that time.

Evidence discovered at the Hargrett Rare Book andManuscript Library, University of Georgia, confirm thatthe volumes of original drawings remained in Englanduntil the early twentieth century. Three bookselleradvertisements, prepared during the early 1920s, werediscovered in a copy of Insects of Georgia. They wereoriginally received by Leonard L. Mackall (1879–1937),who served as librarian for the Wymberley Jones DeRenne Georgia Library near Savannah from 1916 to1918 (Mackall 1931). The De Renne collections,including this copy of Insects of Georgia, were acquiredby the University of Georgia in 1938. A sales card dated“December-January, 1922–23” from bookseller MartinA. McGoff of Liverpool, England, offered the volumesof original drawings for £100. McGoff described the setas “contemporary straight-grained green morocco” andcontaining “The Complete Series of 106 Water-ColourDrawings…(includes two not published).” There is aninscription on a flyleaf in the first volume of this set,probably written in 1922 by McGoff, referring to the setas “Unique! The full set 106 of original paintings.” Thevolumes were purchased from McGoff by The JohnClark Co. of Cleveland, who again offered them toMackall in February 1923 for $675. On a flyleaf of thefirst volume is the penciled notation “Cable Feb 10/23,”probably written by McGoff to document the sale of theset to John Clark on February 10, 1923. Clarkapparently also offered the set to New York Citybookseller Ernest Dressel North, who then contactedMackall in April 1923, apparently unaware that Clarkhad already advertised the same set to McGoff at amuch lower cost: “I have just been offered a remarkablecopy of Smith's 'History of the Rarer LepidopterousInsects of Georgia,” which I am venturing to call to yourattention. Of course, the book itself is so well knownthat I need not describe it; but I give below a brief


description of the copy in question. It contains thecomplete series of the original water color drawings andis in contemporary straight-grain green morocco. I cansell the copy for $965.00. If I recall correctly, you arestill connected to the library in an advisory capacity, andas such you may be willing to recommend this book tothe library.” North also peddled the volumes to JohnWork Garrett (1872–1942), a wealthy philanthropist andbook collector in Baltimore. Perhaps to the chagrin ofMackall, Garrett purchased the copy from Northsometime later in 1923 (Rogers-Price 1983). TheGarrett home (Evergreen House) and its contents werebequeathed to The Johns Hopkins University in 1942.This copy of Insects of Georgia is still preserved in theGarrett family home, which houses the John WorkGarrett Library.

As noted by prior booksellers, these volumes areornately bound in contemporary green straight-grainedmorocco with gilt tooling and pink endpapers. Theintricate frame style design of the boards matches booksbound by London bookbinder Staggemeier & Welcher(signed examples in the British Library). L.Staggemeier and Samuel Welcher operated together inLondon from 1799 until 1809 (Howe 1950, Maxted1977). The spine titles read “Smith's American Insects,”which is consistent with other early copies of the book.The word “Drawings” appears near the tail of eachspine. Placed above the T. Johnes portrait on the insidefront cover of the first volume is a small matching greenleather bookplate with gold embossed lettering thatreads “John & Alice/Garrett/Evergreen House.” Thevolumes are now kept in rigid green slipcases entitled“The Lepidopterous Insects of Georgia.”

In 1816, Abbot informed W. Swainson that he wasworking on a set of drawings that included species notfigured in Insects of Georgia, intending them as a“continuation of that work” (Swainson correspondence,Linnean Society of London). He was clearly familiarwith the book and desired to see more of his drawingspublished. Swainson received the drawings in 1818, butreplied that they were “not so highly finished as thosemust have been from which the plates in Dr. Smith'swork were taken.” Swainson never saw the originaldrawings for Insects of Georgia, as he was only ten yearsold when they were presented to Mariamne Johnes.The drawings completed for Swainson were somewhatsmaller in size and many portrayed the same species asthose published in Insects of Georgia, promptingSwainson to ask Abbot for “a fresh collection ofdrawings of such insects of the size of Smith's.”Swainson ultimately abandoned any notion of producinga continuation of the book (Swainson 1840). Thebutterfly drawings in the Swainson set, currently

deposited at the Alexander Turnbull Library(Wellington, New Zealand), will be the subject offorthcoming publication.

Cabinets. During the preparation of Insects ofGeorgia, Smith compared the species in Abbot'sdrawings with specimens and published references inEngland. He was unsure about the identity of the manyspecies described in the works of J. C. Fabricius andCarolus Linnaeus (Carl von Linné). Smith wrote in thepreface, “This difficulty has been overcome in a greatmeasure by the access which has obligingly beenallowed the editor to the cabinets of the BritishMuseum, Sir Joseph Banks, the late Dr. Hunter…andthe late Mr. Lee's. He added, “Most of even the newinsects figured in this work may be found in one orother of the above cabinets.” The collection of therenowned explorer Joseph Banks (1743–1820) is now atThe Natural History Museum, London. The collectionof William Hunter (1718–1783), Scottish anatomist andphysician, is deposited at the University of Glasgow.The surviving specimens of horticulturist James Lee(1715–1795) are in the Hope EntomologicalCollections, Oxford University. All three of thesecollections contain numerous Fabrician types (Zimsen1964). Smith also consulted the drawings of his friend,William Jones (?–1818), a wealthy wine merchant bestremembered for his 1,500 unpublished Lepidopteraillustrations known as “Jones Icones,” completed ca.1783–1785 and now preserved at the Hope Library ofEntomology, Oxford University. Fabricius describedmany new species from these drawings and Smithconsidered Jones' knowledge of butterflies as “perhapsunequalled.” A decade earlier, Smith had purchased thecollections of Linnaeus, affording him unique access tothese type specimens. Finally, Smith compared Abbot'sdrawings with specimens in the “exquisite collection ofMr. Francillon, transmitted by Abbot himself.”According to Smith, Francillon possessed specimens ofall the new species portrayed in the drawings. Most ofFrancillon's surviving specimens are preserved at TheNatural History Museum, London, and the MacleayMuseum, University of Sydney.

Sometime after purchasing the Linnaean collectionsin 1784, Smith began adding more North AmericanLepidoptera specimens to his own holdings (Mikkola1983, Honey & Scoble 2001). Smith's specimens,including species figured in Insects of Georgia, wereacquired along with the Linnaeus collections in 1829 bythe Linnean Society of London (Gage & Stearn 1988).References to some of these specimens are found in thecopy of Insects of Georgia that Smith donated to theLinnean Society. In the margin of the letterpress for 56species are penciled annotations that read, “In Mus.


Smith” (”In the Museum, from Smith”), “Kind in Mus.Smith,” or “In Mus, Smith Specimen.” The sexes of thespecimens and additional remarks in Latin aresometimes also included. They refer to Smith'sspecimens in the Linnean Society collection, but are notin Smith's hand and were apparently written after thebook was donated to the Linnean Society. Some ofSmith's surviving Lepidoptera specimens at theLinnean Society are labeled “Georgia.” Honey &Scoble (2001) listed a specimen of Agraulis vanillae (L.)that is labeled “Georgia Abbot.” Other Lepidopteraspecimens from Georgia are labeled “WJH” or “WJH,1806.” These undoubtedly refer to Sir William JacksonHooker (1785–1865), a leading English botanist wholater served as the Director of the Royal BotanicGardens, Kew. It was Smith who likely directed Hookertoward a career in botany (Anonymous 1867). Hooker'sGeorgia specimens were probably also collected byAbbot.

Smith did not mention in the introduction of Insectsof Georgia that he personally possessed any of thefigured species, thus he probably acquired them afterthe book was published. He seems to have based hisdescriptions on a combination of Abbot's drawings andspecimens in other collections. The specimens thatAbbot figured, though probably lost, represent syntypesof the taxa described by Smith. Other syntypes mayexist among the surviving collections that wereexamined by Smith, but they are almost certainlyunrecognizable.

Publication. During the 1780s and 1790s, the firstof the finely illustrated books began to appear fromLondon, helping to put England to the forefront ofEuropean printing (Maxted 1977). Many Londonpublishers during this period also maintained their ownbookshops and some were also bookbinders. Dow(1914) claimed that Smith bore the expense ofpublishing Insects of Georgia, but evidence indicatesthat the publishers also suffered losses when the bookunderperformed. Publishers routinely offered authors asingle payment for the copyright of a promising work(Besterman 1938). Although they operated separately,booksellers often combined their efforts to take sharesin ambitious projects (Maxted 1977). Insects of Georgiawas published by three London booksellers whoorganized printing, distribution, and sales. These firmsalso worked together on other projects and for a timeafter publication may have retained exclusive rights toselling Insects of Georgia out of their own bookshops.

James Edwards was a bookseller and bookbindertrading under the name of J. Edwards from threeaddresses on Pall Mall in London from 1784 until hisretirement in 1804 (Maxted 1977). Edwards was the

primary publisher of Insects of Georgia and complainedto John Francillon that he had lost money in itspublication. Edwards' bookshop was a populargathering place for celebrities in the book trades (Inglis-Jones 1950). Smith may have been introduced toEdwards through their mutual friend, Thomas Johnes.John White (1765–1855) was a less influentialbookseller who was located at 63 Fleet Street in Londonfrom 1792–1816. During most of this time, he tradedunder the name of J. White (Maxted 1977). White'sbusiness practices were reputed to be rather despicableat times (Moore-Colyer 1992).

The Cadell bookselling firm had a long legacy, beingdescribed as “the first in Great Britain and perhaps inEurope” (Timperley 1839). Thomas Cadell retired in1793, giving the business to his son, also named ThomasCadell (1773–1836). The elder Cadell appointed hisapprentice, William Davies (?–1820), as a partner to hisson. Davies initially managed company affairs, with theyounger Cadell taking little interest in the trade. In1801, Cadell & Davies sold 740 book titles to the UnitedStates government for the fledgling Library of Congress(Bisbort & Osborne 2000). Cadell took over primarymanagement of the firm when Davies fell ill in 1813(Besterman 1938). The firm operated under the nameof Cadell & Davies until the death of Davies in 1820,after which it was known simply as Thomas Cadell.Cadell died in 1836. Cadell & Davies was located at 141Strand and was considered among the top two or threepublishers in London (Besterman 1938, Maxted 1977).The firm was sometimes accused of engaging in projectsthat were too ambitious and expensive. Insects ofGeorgia was probably one such risky endeavor.

Thomas Bensley II (1760–1835) was retained as theprinter for Insects of Georgia. The firm operated underthe name of T. Bensley and was located on Fleet Streetin London beginning in 1785 (Maxted 1977). Tragically,the company's warehouse was destroyed by fire in 1807and the printing office burned in 1819. Bensleyreopened in 1820 at another location on Fleet Streetand continued to operate until 1835 (Todd 1972).Bensley, one of London's leading printers, boasted thatEnglish presses could “rival and even excel the finestworks” of continental European printers. He was one ofthree London printers who first became involved in thesteam printing press (Handover 1960). Bensley was alsothe printer of richly illustrated books on insects byEdward Donovan in 1798 and 1800. Althoughpublished in a smaller format, the overall layout ofDonovan's books bears a striking resemblance to Insectsof Georgia.

Smith reorganized the haphazard arrangement ofAbbot's drawings to present them in Linnaean


taxonomic order. In his “Introductory Notes,” Abbotadmitted that he did not “marshall them in any Order.”This new arrangement was a challenge for Bensley.Blue check-marks, possibly made by Bensley, arepresent on Abbot's manuscript to the left of the namesfor each entry. Despite his care, he mistakenlytransposed the notes for one of the drawings (seebelow). Each letterpress leaf (English recto and Frenchverso) treated a single “Tab.,” from the Latin “Tabula” (apainting, print, or plate). For the first two pages of plateletterpress, Bensley placed a comma after the Latininsect name, but curiously changed his mind and used aperiod for the remainder of the text (Table 1).

The title page of Insects of Georgia is dated 1797.Nonetheless, Sabin (1868) listed the publication date“1796–1798,” which Eames (1892) interpreted asevidence that the work was “issued in numbers” tosubscribers. However, a letter written in September1797 refers to the completed book and a critical reviewof the entire work was published in January 1798.Thompson (1975) reverted back to 1797 in his revisionof Sabin (1868). I have located 80 surviving copies andnone include wrappers or other evidence of beingissued in parts.

Before the days of mass production, it was customarythat books were offered in simple paper-coveredprinter's pasteboards (laminated paper) with a labelidentifying the title. The buyer later chose a permanentbinding in whatever style they preferred. Copies ofInsects of Georgia were bound by such esteemedLondon bookbinders as Christian S. Kalthoeber andHenry Walther, as well as Joshua Devoy of Dublin.Many copies were bound in straight-grained moroccoskins of red, blue or green, which were common colorsof the period (Ramsden 1956). The color plates weretypically bound into the letterpress along their rightmargins. Nonetheless, one copy I examined had theplates bound along their left margins. Other libertieswere occasionally taken, such as moving the Frenchpreface to the second volume. Sometimes the Frenchtitle page was even discarded. Bookbinders alsofrequently disagreed on where to separate the twovolumes; I found some copies with as many as 54 platesin the first volume. The copy with the original drawingsassembled by publisher J. Edwards includes 50 plates inthe first volume, implying this was the intended layout.The copy that Smith donated to the Linnean Society ofLondon likewise includes 50 plates in the first volume.Some owners combined their sets into a single unwieldyvolume. In rare instances, bookbinders inserted someplates in the wrong order. This error appears to havebeen caused by confusion resulting from the lack ofinked numbers on some of the plates. To help rectify

this, numerals were occasionally penciled in. Misplaced notes. Thomas Bensley confused the

notes for Plates 31 and 43. Abbot's manuscript entriesfor these plates are consecutively numbered 66 and 67.Because of similar sentences at the beginning of theseentries, Bensley mistakenly transposed most of thecomments for Plate 43 into the letterpress for Plate 31.Plate 31 portrays Proserpinus gaurae (J. E. Smith),originally described in Insects of Georgia as Sphinxgaurae. As a result of Bensley's error, Abbot's notes forthis species have never been published. They read(with Abbot's grammar and spelling preserved), “Oliveshaded Sphinx. Was taken feeding on the flower figuredon the Drawing in May, The 1st of June it went into theGround, was bred the 25th. Also went in the Ground7th Septr. Bred 27th March. Is not in Virginia, & is notvery common, It flies in the Day time & sucks theblossoms of the Wild Honeysuckle.”

The plates. Up to one-half of early illustrated booksconsisted of color plates (Swainson 1834) and Insects ofGeorgia was no exception. With 234 total printed pagesand 104 plates, 44 percent of its bulk was comprised ofplates. Although generally referred to as engravings, theplates in Insects of Georgia are etchings, which aremore tonal in character. Stipple techniques wereemployed to create subtle shading. The platemarkimpressions left on the paper reveal that the etchedcopper plates measured approximately 29 cm × 38 cm(11 in × 15 in).

Swainson (1840), Walton (1921), and Weiss (1936)identified the primary engraver as the famed Englishnaturalist Moses Harris (1730–ca. 1788). However,many plates clearly possess the signatures “Jn° HarrisSculp” or “J Harris Sculp” (“Sculp” is short for the Latin“Sculpsit,” meaning “carved by” or “engraved by”). Notonly did Moses Harris typically sign his plates “MosHarris” or “Ms Harris,” he died about five years beforethe first plates for Insects of Georgia were etched. Theplates were presumably created by John Harris(1770?–1834), who has been described as an engraver,lithographer, watercolor artist, aquatintist, andminiature painter (Williamson 1919, Mallalieu 1976,Klimt & Steppes 1999–2000). He also specialized inillustrations of birds and insects (Bénézit 1966). Harrisshould not be mistaken for an earlier British painter, norbooksellers and publishers of the same name that wereactive during the late eighteenth and early nineteenthcenturies. Although other published sources did notprovide Harris' date of birth, the Witt Library (1978)listed it as 1770. If correct, he was 23–25 years oldwhen he etched the plates for Insects of Georgia.

Harris' signature is present on many of the plates, butonly some are dated. Signatures were etched along


stems or on leaves of the illustrated plants on nearly 50plates, a few well hidden within the designs. Manyother plates bear Harris' signature towards the foot ofthe sheets and some of these are barely perceptible.Plates with foot signatures were the earliest to beetched, being dated 1793 and 1794. One is dated “Jany1794” and two are dated “Feby 1794.” Later in 1794,Harris moved his signature into the designs. Fourdesign signatures are dated 1794 and 12 are dated 1795.Harris' signature was printed backwards on 19 plates.One is dated 1794, while the remainder are dated 1795.Like other engravers of his era, Harris perhapsultimately settled for more accurate signatures on thecopper plates, rather than more poorly executed printedversions that were etched in reverse (Gascoigne 2004).The Sphingidae were the first plates to be etched, whilemost of the butterflies were among the last. The plateswere randomly etched, apparently reflecting the whimsof Harris alone.

Plate 16 includes a cryptic engraver's signature,“S/PAR,” followed by the year 1795. The “S” issubtended by the other letters and the “P” is laterallyinverted. Rogers-Price (1983) interpreted the signatureas “S/IAR,” but under magnification the letter on thelower left more closely resembles an inverted “P” oreven a stylized “R.” I was unable to identify thisengraver despite consulting definitive publishedreferences and sending digital photographs of thesignature to specialists at the British Museum,Smithsonian Institution, and elsewhere. There werenumerous engravers active in London during the lateeighteenth century (Maxted 1977). This plate wasprobably the very last to be etched in 1795. John Harrismay have been unable to complete the work oroverlooked this composition among Abbot's drawings.Not only was this plate etched by a different engraver,Abbot formatted the original drawing like his birdillustrations, with a hint of groundcover beneath theplant. The engraver further embellished thecomposition with a whimsical landscape thatincorporated a distant building and palm trees.

The etchings for Insects of Georgia are meticulousand effectively capture the minute details of Abbot'sdrawings. There are few instances where the layout ofthe prints differ from the original drawings and mostmerely involve slight relocations of figures. The adultmoths on Plates 77 and 78 were transposed on someimpressions (see below). An upper flower appearing onthe original drawing for Plate 33 was etched, but forsome reason it remained uncolored on nearly all thefinished prints—there were even attempts to erase itsink outlines. The coloring of prints for fine illustratedworks was customarily entrusted to local artists or art

students. Engravers sometimes colored their ownprints, but I found no evidence that this was true for allcopies of Insects of Georgia. As noted by Swainson(1840), high quality books were usually colored by“skillful hands.” Despite the likely use of more talentedcolorists for Insects of Georgia, Bohn (1865) and Sabin(1868) complained that some copies were“indifferently” or “badly” colored and of less value.Walton (1921) agreed that “some of the figures have notfared so well at the hands of the colorists.” I personallyobserved pronounced differences in the quality ofplates, even within the same volumes. After coloring,many figures on the plates were heightened (varnished)with a solution of gum arabic to impart a bright, glossyappearance.

From the very beginning, there were criticisms thatsome of the figures in Insects of Georgia wereimprecise. In 1797, William Jones wrote to Smith, “Sir,the merit is yours. The demerit attaches to the engraverand colourer, for there are some faults.” John E. LeConte, who would later co-author his own illustratedbook based largely on Abbot drawings, wrote in 1830 toT. W. Harris about the difficulty in accuratelydetermining “what Smith meant by many of his species[because] his descriptions are so short and many of hisfigures inaccurate” (Harris correspondence, Ernst MayrLibrary of the Museum of Comparative Zoology,Harvard University; microfilm at AmericanPhilosophical Society). Lowndes (1834) and Brunet(1865) likewise claimed that the plates in Insects ofGeorgia were not accurate. Strecker (1872–1878)accused the colorists of performing “some funny work”and complained that the adult moth figures on Plate 29had “no foundation except in the fancy of the personwho colored the plates, who doubtless imagined that alittle variety introduced would improve the natural plainappearance of the insect.” A comparison of publishedprints for Plate 29 against Abbot's original drawing ofLaothoe juglandis (J. E. Smith) does indeed show adeviation. The moths on the published plates havebrown or reddish-brown forewings with paler yellowish-brown hindwings. Abbot's original figures have lesscontrasting lighter brown forewings and hindwings.Several other plates show similar deviations in color. Aswith any early illustrated book, the original drawings aregenerally more accurate and lack the vicissitudes ofsubsequent print colorists.

Vellum plates. A most extraordinary copy of Insectsof Georgia is preserved in the Hargrett Rare Book andManuscript Library, University of Georgia. The platesin these volumes were printed with black ink on vellumand 15 were signed in pencil “J Harris Pinxt” byengraver John Harris. Harris apparently colored these


prints himself and their quality is far superior to allothers, even surpassing that of Abbot's originaldrawings. Harris imparted a three-dimensional look tothe wings of the adult figures and enriched the colorswith more vivid tones. The general coloration of thevellum prints is more similar to those in other copies ofthe book than to the original drawings, suggesting theywere created after the drawings were disposed of in1799. This is supported by the presence of 1801watermarks on many sheets of white wove paper thatwere bound into the volumes to protect the vellumplates. The volumes are ornately bound incontemporary red morocco with spine titles that read“Abbot's American Insects.” Like the volumes thatcontain the original drawings, this set was probablybound by Staggemeier & Welcher (Heath 1999) (thebinder's ticket was removed from the inside cover of thefirst volume). The volumes are now protected in a rigidblack case that identifies them as “Insects of Georgia/J.Abbot/Printed on Vellum.” A penciled note on a freeendpaper at the back of the second volume reads,“From the library of Prince Golitzin (see item #303 in1866 catalogue).” Russian Prince MikhalAliksandrovich Golitsyn (1804–1860) was a famousbibliophile who amassed a rich library of early printedbooks. The faded remnants of Golitsyn's large ovalbookplate are visible on a flyleaf of the first volume. Acopy of Insects of Georgia, presumably the vellum set,was listed in the Golitsyn library catalog (Gunzbourg1866). Additional bookplates reveal that these volumeschanged hands at least three more times. Ownersincluded English school governor Joseph Neeld(1800–1856), antique collector and publisher MoncureBiddle (1882–?), and art collector Mildred Barnes Bliss(1875–1969). The Bliss library served as the foundationfor the Harvard University Dumbarton Oaks ResearchLibrary (Washington, D.C.). Dumbarton Oaks ownedthe vellum copy of Insects of Georgia, but it wasdiscarded with other butterfly books by a formerlibrarian who considered them to be peripheral to theircollections (L. Lott pers comm.). Fortunately, theUniversity of Georgia acquired this historic set in 1998from the prominent New York City bookseller DonaldA. Heald (Heald 2002–2005).

Larvae and pupae. William H. Edwards (1894)complained, “Abbot's figures, especially of larvae andpupae, are bad as can be.” Although Edwards'assessment was based solely on engraved reproductionsin Boisduval & Le Conte (1829–[1837]), some ofAbbot's original figures of larvae and pupae are equallyabysmal. The majority of Abbot's Lepidopteraimmatures are accurate, probably having been sketchedfrom living individuals that he reared. Larvae that are

correct in form, yet improperly colored, were possiblyderived from inflated (blown) specimens that he wasknown to provide to interested naturalists. Otherfigures possess conflicting characters or do not resembleany known species. These seem to have been takenfrom memory or contrived for the sake of thecompositions. For example, the larva that he includedin several drawings of Asterocampa clyton (Boisduval &Le Conte) is not consistent with any known species,especially Asterocampa (Calhoun 2004). As Abbot'sknowledge became more sophisticated, he oftenincluded more accurate renditions of larvae in hissubsequent drawings.

Using a number of published and unpublishedreferences, including Allen et al. (2005) and Wagner(2005), I assessed the accuracy of the early stagesdepicted on the butterfly plates in Insects of Georgia(Table 1). Because variation is expected to occur on thepublished plates, Abbot's original drawings were alsoconsulted. Except for a few minor departures in color,the published figures do not differ significantly from theoriginals. Abbot's duplicate figures of the larva andpupa of nine species were published in Insects ofGeorgia and Boisduval & Le Conte (1829–[1837])(Table 1).

The Plants. Haworth (1807) emphasized thebotanical relevance of Insects of Georgia when hewrote, “the whole Plants as well as Insects beingscientifically delineated and described, that thispublication is to the full as valuable to the Botanist, as itis to the Entomologist: we never before beheld thesister sciences walk so closely, and so engagingly hand inhand, as in this interesting volume.—It is truly a Floraet Entomologia.” Rich (1846) agreed that Insects ofGeorgia was a valuable tool for botanists. In December1812, botanist Stephen Elliott traveled to Columbia,South Carolina to consult a copy of Insects of Georgia inpreparation for his landmark treatment, Sketch of theBotany of South-Carolina and Georgia (Elliott1816–1824) (Ewan 1971). Evidence indicates that thisis probably the same copy now deposited in the ThomasCooper Library, University of South Carolina.

Very few early entomological illustrators portrayedhostplants and immature stages of Lepidoptera.Notable exceptions were Maria Sibylla Merian(1647–1717), Eleazar Albin (fl. 1690–1742), BenjaminWilkes (fl. 1690–1749), Edward Donovan (1768–1837),and Moses Harris. Many of Abbot's drawings, includingall those for Insects of Georgia, combined plants withthe adults and immatures of insects. Abbot maintainedthat he was not a botanist, “only an admirer of NaturesBeauties, to meet with a new growing flower or plantmuch pleases me” (Swainson correspondence, Linnean


Society of London). After a lifetime of rearing larvae oncountless plants, his view of botany remainedunpretentious. In a letter he wrote to T. W. Harris atthe age of 84 he again professed, “I am noBotanist…there is a great variety of flowers inGeorgia…I am always much pleased, when I meet withany that is new to me” (Dow 1914).

Despite arguments that Abbot's early botanicalrenderings were not precise (e.g. Rogers-Price 1983),the plants in his drawings for Insects of Georgia areessentially accurate (Britten 1898, M. A. Garland pers.comm.). They are much improved over the hostplantdrawings that he completed in London prior to 1773.Abbot illustrated several North American plants for thefirst time among the drawings for Smith. From these,Smith proposed six new plant taxa in Insects of Georgia.Smith confused some other species, such as themilkweed in Plate 6, which he identified as Asclepiascurassavica L. (Apocynaceae). This plate also portraysthe butterfly Danaus plexippus (L.). Euploeacurassavicae Fabricius, a proposed replacement namefor this insect, was derived from Smith's identification ofthe illustrated plant; “Habitat in Americanaemeridionalis Asclepiade curassavica” (Fabricius 1938).Smith's determination also misled Ewan (1985), whosupposed this exotic plant was firmly established inGeorgia by the 1790s. The illustration actually portraysthe native butterfly-weed, Asclepias tuberosa L.(Apocynaceae).

Botanist Alvan W. Chapman, author of Flora of theSouthern United States (Chapman 1860), identified theplants figured on the 24 butterfly plates of Insects ofGeorgia (Scudder 1872). Table 1 presents hisdeterminations, as well as current interpretations andnomenclatural updates by Mark A. Garland (BotanySection, Florida Dept. of Agriculture & ConsumerServices, Division of Plant Industry). The originalidentifications of Smith are also given in Table 1.Historical determinations are provided in their originalnomenclature. Because of the book's botanicalsignificance, The Missouri Botanical Garden hasdigitally reproduced their volumes of Insects of Georgiaand made them available for viewing on the Internet(MBG 1995–2005).

Artist-naturalist Titian R. Peale (1799–1885) metAbbot in 1818 and related to lepidopterist William H.Edwards in 1864 that “caterpillars of all sorts werebrought in [to Abbot] by negro boys in Savannah, andhe generally only learned what species they belonged towhen the butterfly or moth came from the chrysalid orpupa” (dos Passos 1951). Peale was mistaken, as Abbotoften wrote of personally collecting larvae and watchingfemales lay eggs to discover the hostplants (Table 1).

Most plants portrayed in his American Lepidopteradrawings have been confirmed as valid hostplants.However, it is well known that some of his associationsare erroneous. Over 150 years ago, Guenée (1852)observed that Abbot's plant figures “form a pleasantcollection to the eyes, but sometimes do not have theleast relationship with those that really nourish thecaterpillars” (translation from French). Abbot may havemisinterpreted his observations or intentionally figuredinappropriate hosts.

Some incorrect hostplant associations were likelybased on Abbot's confusion of different species. Thedrawing for Plate 21 depicts two species (as one) of oak-feeding skippers, Erynnis brizo (Boisduval & Le Conte)and either E. juvenalis (Fabricius) or E. horatius. Theplant was described by Smith in the book as a newspecies, Glycine elliptica Smith (Fabaceae), nowconsidered to be a synonym of Galactia volubilis (L.)Britton. This plant was also figured in an Abbot drawingused for Plate 65 of E. brizo in Boisduval & Le Conte(1829–[1837]) and in an unpublished drawing of E.juvenalis in The Natural History Museum, London. Inhis notes for various Erynnis drawings, Abbot referredto “Wild Indigo,” presumably a species of Baptisia(Fabaceae) (Table 1). This is reinforced by the sprig ofBaptisia figured in Abbot's unpublished Erynnisdrawing owned by Smith. Yet another leguminousplant, Indigofera caroliniana Mill., is portrayed in anAbbot drawing of E. brizo in The Natural HistoryMuseum, London. Erynnis zarucco (Lucas) andErynnis baptisiae (Forbes) feed on these legumes andoccur in the portions of Virginia and Georgia that Abbotexplored (Opler 1995), but were not recognized asdifferent species until long after his death. Like manylepidopterists of today, Abbot often had difficultydifferentiating the Erynnis he encountered. Abbotapplied the same figures of early stages to at least threedifferent Erynnis species over the years.

Abbot probably reared the larvae of many species incaptivity without prior knowledge of their hosts byforcing them to accept plants that are not fed upon innature. A forced captive rearing is probably responsiblefor Abbot's drawing of Atrytone arogos (Boisduval & LeConte) with the unconfirmed, yet conceivable, hostEchinochloa crusgalli (L.) (Poaceae) for Plate 17 ofInsects of Georgia. The portrayal of Polygoniainterrogationis (Fabricius) with Tilia americana L. onPlate 11 may also be the result of a captive rearing.Fabricius proposed a new name for this butterfly,Cynthia tiliae, based on Smith's identification of theplant on this plate; “Habitat in Americae borealis Tiliaalba” (Fabricius 1938). Additional butterfly taxa namedby Fabricius (1938) from the hostplants in Insects of


Georgia are listed in Table 1. Regardless of Abbot's abilities, some of his hostplant

relationships are simply untenable. His drawing ofWallengrenia otho (J. E. Smith) for Plate 16 of Insects ofGeorgia includes a species of blue-eyed grass,Sisyrinchium L. (Table 1). Although W. otho feeds ongrasses (Poaceae), Sisyrinchium is not a grass at all, buta member of the irus family (Iridaceae). Abbot'sdrawing for Plate 23 illustrates the grass-feedingLerema accius (J. E. Smith) with a spectacular bloomingbranch of the legume Wisteria frutescens (L.) Poir.(Fabaceae). The drawing for Plate 24 suggests anotherimplausible association of Pholisora catullus (Fab.) withthe mint Monarda punctata L. (Lamiaceae). Pholisoracatullus feeds on members of the Amaranthaceae andChenopodiaceae. Probably in an attempt to verifyAbbot's hostplant, Scudder (1888-1889) noted thatlarvae of P. catullus refused to eat a related species ofMonarda. These three butterflies and their naturalhosts are essentially dull and unattractive. In theseinstances, it seems that Abbot's desire to createappealing compositions transcended his pursuit foraccuracy as a naturalist. Such artistic license was notuncommon in entomological art of the eighteenth andearly nineteenth centuries. Dutch naturalist M. S.Merian also made “aesthetic decisions” for her drawingsthat deviated from her own observations (Wettengl1998). Abbot probably assumed that occasionalalterations were necessary to satisfy his customers. Thedefinition of Merian's work by Dance (1978) could justas easily apply to Abbot: they “combined science and artin equal proportions, meeting the demands of art at theexpense, when necessary, of science.” I have attemptedto evaluate the validity of the hostplants in Abbot'sbutterfly drawings and their accompanying notes forInsects of Georgia (Table 1). This was done usingnumerous references, including Robinson et al. (2002),but was complicated by the perpetuation ofunconfirmed reports in the literature. Some of thesewere undoubtedly derived from the very same recordsof Abbot.

Watermarks. The letterpress and plates of Insects ofGeorgia were printed on fine wove paper from England.Wove paper was invented during the first half of theeighteenth century by English papermaker JamesWhatman. Wove lacked the furrows of traditional laidpaper and was attractive to printers, engravers, andartists. By the 1780s, wove had become more commonin paper mills in England and elsewhere. Today, 99percent of paper is made on a wove wire base (Balston1992, 1998). Insects of Georgia was produced almostexclusively on paper that bears variations of “JWhatman” watermarks.

James Whatman operated his paper mill, calledTurkey Mill, at Maidstone, Kent. By the time Whatmandied in 1759, Turkey Mill had become the largest papermill in England (Balston 1992, TM 2004). Whatman'sson, James Whatman II, later took possession of TurkeyMill. He sold the business in 1794 to Thomas, Robert,and Finch Hollingworth. The Hollingworths partneredwith Whatman's former apprentice, William Balston.This partnership was dissolved in 1807, after which theHollingworths used “J Whatman/Turkey Mill”watermarks, while Balston used “J Whatman” (Balston1992). The most famous natural history publication toutilize Whatman paper was The Birds of America byJohn J. Audubon (1827–1838). John Abbot renderedsome of his illustrations on Whatman paper. MariamneJohnes also used this paper for her correspondence withSmith. After 260 years, through the legacy of W.Balston, the Whatman name is still associated with themanufacture of paper (Whatman 2004). The survivingbuildings of the Turkey Mill complex have beenconverted into a business park that currently housesover fifty companies (TM 2004).

Watermarks are extremely useful in addressingquestions involving suspected reissues of books andengravings. They are sometimes separated intowatermarks (names and dates) and countermarks(designs). I followed the traditional classification andconsidered all these elements to be watermarks. Datedwatermarks were rare in British papers prior to 1794and were not always updated annually until about 1810(Balston 1992). Nonetheless, watermarks can bevaluable in establishing chronology for copies of Insectsof Georgia.

Wilkinson (1981, 1982) and Rogers-Price (1983)observed that plates in copies of Insects of Georgia hadwatermarks dated well into the 1820s. Heath (1982,1990, 1999) and Leab (1984, 1998) listed seven copieswith later watermarks. Wilkinson (1982) studied 35 setsof the book and found that many exhibited this disparity.Unfortunately, a planned summary of his findings wasnot published. Rogers-Price (1983) suggested that thebook was reissued after 1827, with work beginning onreprinting the plates after 1817.

In an effort to better understand these watermarks, Iattempted to locate and examine as many survivingcopies of Insects of Georgia as possible. I ultimatelyfound 80 copies in six countries. Through the assistanceof numerous librarians and owners, watermarkinformation was recorded for each copy (Table 2).Seventy years ago, Georgia naturalist Lucian Harris, Jr.knew of only three “perfect sets of this rare old workbeing carefully preserved in Georgia” (Harris 1931).Today, no fewer than nine copies reside in the state.


Versions of Whatman watermarks in copies of Insectsof Georgia are “J Whatman,” “1794/J Whatman,” “JWhatman/18[--],” “J Whatman/Turkey Mills/1817,” and“J Whatman/Turkey Mill/1822” (Figs. 1, 2). Laterwatermarks are larger; “1794/J Whatman” measure 13cm × 3.8 cm (5 in ×1.5 in), while “J Whatman/TurkeyMills/1817” measure 26 cm × 9.5 cm (10.25 in × 3.75in). Regardless of the dates on the plates, theletterpress leaves in all copies of Insects of Georgia arewatermarked “1794/J Whatman” (Figs. 1, 2). Datesfound in association with Whatman watermarks onplates are 1794, 1817, 1820, 1821, 1822, 1823, and 1827(Table 2). Watermarks usually run lengthwise on thesheets and are located at the fore edges of the leaves orin the gutters near the binding. The year associatedwith Watermarks of “J Whatman/Turkey Mills (with an“s”) was frequently truncated or completely croppedwhen the plates were trimmed and bound. Complete“Turkey Mills” watermarks were found to be associatedonly with the year 1817, thus such marks withunidentifiable dates were listed as “[1817]” on Table 2.Paper with “Turkey Mill(s)” watermarks originated fromthe Hollingworth operation at Turkey Mill, Maidstone.Paper with “J Whatman” watermarks dated after 1794originated from the Balston paper mill at nearbySpringfield. Similar variations of Whatman watermarkshave been documented on plates in Audubon(1827–1838) (Low 2002, Steiner 2003).

The single plate watermarked “J Whatman/1827”was found in a copy of Insects of Georgia deposited inthe Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Library,University of Georgia (Table 2). This set was originallyowned by Franklin College, the forerunner of theUniversity of Georgia. Interestingly, at least seven

plates in this copy bear partial watermarks of “& S” and“II”. Such watermarks were also found in copies in theJohn Carter Brown Library (Brown University), JohnHay Library (Brown University), Hill Memorial Library(Louisiana State University), Morris Museum of Art,and the New York Public Library. Plates in these copiesare watermarked 1820–1822 (Table 2). All watermarksof “& S,” “S,” and “II” were found in association with theyear 1820. I was unable to identify this papermaker.Even a contact at the British Association of PaperHistorians was unfamiliar with these watermarks.These copies of the book may have been among the lastassembled, utilizing less expensive paper to completethe plates for these volumes. Flyleaves in a reissue copyin the Library of Congress (Table 2) bear watermarks of“W. Venables/1824.” These blank pages were mostlikely added by the bookbinder. Other survivingreissues probably also contain a mixture of papers, butconsist mainly of Balston and Hollingworth product (as“J Whatman”). American lepidopterist William J.Holland may have been aware of later watermarks,including the 1817 dates in his own personal copy nowin the Carnegie Museum of Natural History. InHolland (1898), he did not say that the book waspublished in 1797, but rather that it “appeared in twofolio volumes, bearing the date of 1797.”

Plate captions. Dunthorne (1938) observed thatplates of Insects of Georgia were irregularly producedwithout numbers and names. I compared plate captionsin 23 copies of the book (Table 3) and discovered thattheir presence and position is variable, particularly incopies with watermarks dated later than 1794. Theseelements are engraved on some plates and handwrittenon others. Many lack plate captions entirely.

FIGURES 1-4. Dated watermarks and plate captions from Insects of Georgia. 1, “1794/J Whatman” watermark on a letterpress leaf. 2,Balston “J Whatman/1821” plate watermark. 3, Handwritten caption, Plate 19, first issue. 4, Engraved caption, Plate 19, early reissue.

RepositoryNo.

copies Dates recordedStates of plates 77 & 78

1. American Museum of Natural History Research Library (New York, New York) 1 1820, 1821, 1822

2. Atlanta History Center (Atlanta, Georgia) 1 1794, 1820, 1821, 1822 77: 1, 78: 1

3. Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley (Berkeley, California) 1 1794

4. Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University (New Haven, Connecticut) 1 [1817], 1822 7: 1, 78: 1

5. Bibliothèque Nationale de France [National Library of France](Paris, France) 1 1794

6. Bio-medical Library, University of Minnesota (Minneapolis,Minnesota) 1 1794

7. Birmingham Public Library (Birmingham, Alabama) 1 1794

8. Bodleian Library, Oxford University (Oxford, England) 1 1794 77: 2, 78: 2

9. British Library (London, England) 3 1794 (all copies) 77: 2, 78: 2 (all copies)

10. Buffalo & Erie County Public Library (Buffalo, New York) 1 1817

11. Canadian Agriculture Library (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) 1 none found

12. Carl A. Kroch Library, Cornell University (Ithaca, New York) 1 1794

13. Carnegie Museum of Natural History Library (Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania) 1 1817 77: 1, 78: 1

14. Charleston Library Society (Charleston, South Carolina) 1 1794

15. Doheny Memorial Library, University of Southern California(Los Angeles, California) 2

copy 1: 1794copy 2: [1817], 1821, 1822

16. Ellis Library, University of Missouri-Columbia (Columbia,Missouri) 1 1822 77: 1, 78: 2

17. Entomology Library, The Natural History Museum, LondonEngland) 2

copy 1: 1794copy 2: 1821, 1822

77: 2, 78: 2 77: 1, 78: 1

18. Ernst Mayr Library of the Museum of Comparative Zoology,Harvard University (Cambridge, Massachusetts) 1 1794, 1817 77: 1, 78: 1

19. Ewell Sale Stewart Library, The Academy of Natural Sciencesof Philadelphia (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) 1794, 1817 77: 1, 78: 1

20. Fitzwilliam Museum (Cambridge, England) 1 1794 77: 2, 78: 2

21. Hamilton Library, University of Hawai'i (Manoa, Hawai'i) 1 1794 77: 2, 78: 1

22. Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Library, University ofGeorgia (Athens, Georgia)

4

copy 1: 1794, 1820, 1821,1822, 1827

copy 2: 1794, 1817, 1821, 1822, 1823

copy 3: 1794copy 4: none (vellum)

plate guards 1801

77: 1, 78: 2

77: 2, 78: 1

77: 2, 78: 277: 2, 78: 2

23. Hill Memorial Library, Louisiana State University (BatonRouge, Louisiana) 1 1794, 1820, 1821, 1822 77: 1, 78: 2

24. Hope Library of Entomology, Oxford University (Oxford,England) 1 1794 77: 2, 78: 2

25. Houghton Library, Harvard University (Cambridge,Massachusetts) 1 1794


TABLE 2. Dated plate watermarks in copies of Insects of Georgia. State of plates 77 & 78: 1 = uncorrected; 2 = corrected.


RepositoryNo.


26. Howard-Tilton Memorial Library, Tulane University (NewOrleans, Louisiana) 1 1794

27. Ina Dillard Russell Library, Georgia College & State University(Milledgeville, Georgia) 1 1794

28. John Carter Brown Library, Brown University (Providence, RhodeIsland) 1 1820, 1821,1822

29. John Crerar Library, University of Chicago (Chicago, Illinois) 1 1820, 1822 77: 1, 78: 2

30. John Hay Library, Brown University (Providence, Rhode Island) 1 1820, 1821, 1822

31. John Hinchliff, personal library of Florence Hinchliff (Portland,Oregon) 1 none found

32. John M. Olin Library, Washington University (St. Louis, Missouri) 1 1794

33. John Rylands University Library of Manchester (Manchester,England) 1 1794

34. John V. Calhoun, personal library (Palm Harbor, Florida) 1 1794, [1817], 1821, 1822 77: 1, 78: 1

35. Joseph F. Cullman 3rd Library of Natural History, SmithsonianInstitution 1 1794 77: 2, 78: 2

36. Library and Archives Canada (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) 1 1794, 1820, 1821, 1822

37. Library of Congress (Washington, D.C.) 1 1794, 1821, 1822, 18[23] 77: 2, 78: 1

38. Linnean Society of London (London, England) 1 1794 77: 2, 78: 2

39. Lucy Lester Willet Memorial Library, Wesleyan College (Macon,Georgia) 1 1794, [1817], 1821, 1822

40. The LuEsther T. Mertz Library, The New York Botanical Garden(New York, New York) 1 none found 77: 1, 78: 1

41. Macdonald Campus Library, McGill University (Montreal,Quebec, Canada) 1 1794 77: 2, 78: 1

42. McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity, FloridaMuseum of Natural History, Univ of Florida, (Gainesville, Florida) 1 1794 77: 2, 78: 2

43. Memorial Library, University of Wisconsin (Madison, Wisconsin) 1 1821, 1822, 1823 (flyleaves 1824) 77: 1, 78: 1

44. Michigan State University Library (East Lansing, Michigan) 1 1794 77: 2, 78: 2

45. Missouri Botanical Garden Library (St. Louis, Missouri) 1 1794 77: 2, 78: 2

46. Morris Museum of Art (Augusta, Georgia) 1 1820, 1821, 1822 77: 2, 78: 2

47. National Agriculture Library (Beltsville, Maryland) 1 [1817] 77: 1, 78: 1

48. New York Public Library (New York, New York) 1 1820, 1821, 1822

49. Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen[Göttingen State and University Library} (Göttingen, Germany) 1 1794

50. Olin Memorial Library, Wesleyan University (Middletown,Connecticut) 1 1794 77: 2, 78: 2

51. Österreichische Nationalbibliothek [Austrian National Library](Vienna, Austria) 1 1794

52. Parks Library, Iowa State University (Ames, Iowa) 1 1794 77: 2, 78: 2

TABLE 2. (continued) Dated plate watermarks in copies of Insects of Georgia. State of plates 77 & 78: 1 = uncorrected; 2 = corrected.

RepositoryNo.


53. Pennsylvania Hospital Medical Library (Philadelphia,Pennsylvania) 1 1794 77: 2, 78: 1

54. Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County (Cincinnati,Ohio) 1 1822 77: 1, 78: 2

55. Radcliffe Science Library, Oxford University (Oxford, England) 1 1794 77: 2, 78: 2

56. Rare Book, Manuscript and Special Collections Library, DukeUniversity (Durham, North Carolina) 1 [1817], 1821, 1822 77: 2, 78: 1

57. Royal Entomological Society Library (London, England) 1 1794 77: 2, 78: 2 58. Sächsische Landesbibliothek-Staats- und UniversitätsbibliothekDresden [Saxon State Library and University Library] (Dresden,Germany) 1 1794

59. South Caroliniana Library, University of South Carolina(Columbia, South Carolina) 1 1817 77: 1, 78: 1

60. Sutro Library, California State Library (San Francisco, California) 1 [1817] 77: 1, 77: 1

61. Tampa-Hillsborough County Public Library (Tampa, Florida) 1 1817 77: 1, 77: 1

62. Thomas Cooper Library, University of South Carolina (Columbia,South Carolina) 1 1794 77: 2, 78: 2

63. Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut(Storrs, Connecticut) 1 1794 77: 2, 78: 2

64. Thomas Rare Book Library, Wittenberg University (Springfield,Ohio) 1 1794 77: 2, 78: 2

65. Tracy W. McGregor Library, University of Virginia(Charlottesville, Virginia) 1 1817

65. University College of London (London, England) 1 1794 77: 2, 78: 1

66. University Library, University of Cambridge (Cambridge,England) 2

copy 1: none foundcopy 2: 1794, [1817]

77: 2, 78: 277: 1, 78: 1

67. University of Illinois Library (Urbana-Champaign, Illinois) 1 1794, 1820, 1821, 1822, 1823 77: 1, 78: 1

68. W. E. B. Du Bois Library, University of Massachusetts (Amherst, Massachusetts) 1 1817 77: 1, 78: 1

69. Warren N. Baggett, printseller (Franklin, Tennessee) (plates sold2003–2004) 1 1817

70. Wilson Library, University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill, NorthCarolina) 1 1794 77: 2, 78: 2

71. Woodruff Library, Emory University (Atlanta, Georgia) 1 1822, 1823

Book auction records 1

1. 20 November 1981 (Heath 1982, Leab 1984) 1 1821, 1822

2. 8 December 1989 (Heath 1990) 1 1820, 1822

3. 14 June 1990 (Heath 1990) 1 1794, 1820, 1821, 1822

4. 15 June 1990 (Heath 1990) 1 1820, 1822, 1823

5. 1993 (McGrath 1993) 1 1794

6. 3 June 1997 (Leab 1998, Heath 1999) 1 1817

7. 13 June 2002 (Christie's 2002) 1 “later issue” (dates unknown)

8. 19 November 2003 (Christie's 2003) 1 “later issue of around 1822”


TABLE 2. (continued) Dated plate watermarks in copies of Insects of Georgia. State of plates 77 & 78: 1 = uncorrected; 2 = corrected.


TABLE 3. Captions on plates in copies of Insects of Georgia. Copies marked by an asterisk (*) were personally examined (digital photos forcopy 18). Plates that lack captions are not listed.

Copy examined Watermarks Handwritten ink captions Engraved captions

1. Bodleian Library, Oxford University(Oxford, England)

1794 none 1-104

2. Charleston Library Society(Charleston, South Carolina)

1794 1-3, 5, 7-54, 56-104 (Plate 4 missing) 6

3. Entomology Library, The NaturalHistory Museum, London (London,England) (copy 1)*

1794 1-104 none

4. Entomology Library, The NaturalHistory Museum, London (London,England) (copy 2)*

[1817], 1821, 1822 42, 57, 77 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17, 20-22, 24, 31,33, 36, 38, 51, 54, 56, 58, 60, 66, 68, 70,72-76, 84-87, 89, 90, 93-104

5. Ewell Sale Stewart Library, TheAcademy of Natural Sciences ofPhiladelphia (Philadelphia,Pennsylvania)*

1794, 1817 10, 40, 42, 57, 77, 82, 91, 97, 104 5, 7, 9, 11-16, 18-21, 26-32, 34, 35, 37,39, 41, 43, 44, 47-50, 52-55, 58-61, 63-65, 67, 69, 71-74, 76, 79-81, 83, 85-87,90, 92, 94-96, 98-100, 103

6. Hargrett Rare Book and ManuscriptLibrary, University of Georgia(Athens, Georgia) (copy 1)*

1794, 1820, 1821, 1827 none 1-6, 8-11, 13, 14, 16-19, 21, 22, 24, 25,27-34, 36-38, 41, 42, 44-46, 49-52, 54-60, 63-77, 79, 80, 83-104 (Plates 7, 48missing)


1794, 1817, 1821, 1822, 1823 none 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16-18, 20-22, 24,25, 27-33, 35, 38-40, 50-60, 67, 69, 70,72-74, 76, 77, 79, 81-90, 93-104


1794 58, 78 1-5, 7, 9-57, 59-77, 79-83, 85-104


none; vellum (plate guards 1801) None 1-104

10. Hill Memorial Library, LouisianaState University (Baton Rouge,Louisiana)

1794, 1820, 1821, 1822 None 2-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16-24, 28-30, 33, 35-38, 41, 42, 44, 46-56, 58-60, 63-74, 76,78-98, 100-104

11. Howard-Tilton Memorial Library,Tulane University (New Orleans,Louisiana)*

1794 1-104 none

12. Ina Dillard Russell Library, GeorgiaCollege & State University(Milledgeville, Georgia)

1794 1-104 none

13. John V. Calhoun, personal library(Palm Harbor, Florida)*

1794, [1817], 1821, 1822 10, 15, 42, 54, 77 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 16, 17, 20-22, 24, 31, 33,36, 38, 51, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 66, 68, 70,72-74, 76, 84-87, 89, 90, 93-104

14. Joseph F. Cullman 3rd Library ofNatural History, SmithsonianInstitution (Washington, D. C.)*

1794 1-104 none

15. Library of Congress (Washington,D. C.)*

1794, 1821, 1822, 18[23] None 2-7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16-18, 20-22, 24, 25,27-33, 36, 36, 38, 39, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50-60, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72-74, 76, 77, 79, 82-90, 92-104

16. Linnean Society of London(London, England)*

1794 79 1-7, 9-78, 80-104

17. McGuire Center for Lepidopteraand Biodiversity, Florida Museumof Natural History, University ofFlorida (Gainesville, Florida)*

1794 None 1-104

18. Missouri Botanical Garden Library(St. Louis, Missouri)*

1794 None 1-104

19. Royal Entomological SocietyLibrary (London, England)

1794 72 1-71, 73-104

20. South Caroliniana Library,University of South Carolina(Columbia, South Carolina)*

1817 None 1-27, 29-32, 34, 35, 37, 39, 41-46, 48-50,52-55, 57-61, 63-65, 67, 69-74, 76, 80-104

21. Tampa-Hillsborough County PublicLibrary (Tampa, Florida)*

1817 77 1-4, 6-32, 34, 35, 37, 41-50, 52-55, 57-61, 63, 65, 67, 70-74, 76, 80-90, 92-104

22. Thomas Cooper Library, Universityof South Carolina (Columbia, SouthCarolina)*

1794 10, 33 1-9, 11-32, 34-104

23. Thomas Rare Book Library,Wittenberg University (Springfield,Ohio)

1794 None 1-104


Plates in copies 1–3, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16–19, 22, and 23(Table 3) are watermarked 1794. The plates in copies 3,11, 12, and 14 have handwritten numbers at the head(top) of the sheets and handwritten Latin insect namescentered at the foot (bottom). These captions wereinscribed in black ink by at least two calligraphers andthe Latin genus names are almost always abbreviated(Fig. 3). Only in rare instances is the genus written outcompletely. The names were drafted in pencil withhorizontal guidelines and overwritten in ink, after whichthe guidelines were erased. This process is clearlydemonstrated by the unfinished name on Plate 70 incopy 13, which is written in pencil and still includesguidelines. Faint traces of guidelines are also presenton plates in other copies of the book. All such platesbear watermarks of “1794/J Whatman” or undatedwatermarks of “J Whatman” suggestive of papermanufactured prior to 1794. The etched signature ofJohn Harris is rarely present at the foot of plates thathave handwritten captions.

The plates in copies 1, 17, 18, and 23 have engravedcaptions (Fig. 4). Copy 18 is currently available forviewing on the Internet (MBG 1995–2005). Thecaptions on the vellum plates at the University ofGeorgia (copy 9) are also engraved. Engraved captionsinclude a small number at the head of the sheet, a fullLatin insect name at the left foot, and a full Latin plantname at the right foot. Plate 68 lacks a plant name in allcopies because the plant was not identified in thecorresponding letterpress. Engraved captions areidentical between the same plates in different copies ofthe book, regardless of watermarked dates. At least twoletter engravers were responsible for adding theseelements to the copper plates. The etched signature ofJohn Harris is present at the foot of many more of theseplates than those with handwritten captions or none atall. A memorandum about the book by J. E. Smith,dated 19 February 1798, is inserted into copy 1 (seebelow). The captions in this copy are engraved, thuscaptions were evidently added to the copper plates priorto February 1798.

Copies 8, 16, 19, and 22 are primarily comprised ofplates with engraved captions, but they also containseveral plates with captions that are handwritten and/orlacking. Copy 16 was assembled within ten years after1797, as it was presented to the Linnean Societybetween 1805 and 1807 (Anonymous 1807a). Copy 20was listed in an 1807 catalog of books belonging to theSouth-Carolina College (now Univ. of South Carolina)(Anonymous 1807b) and was likewise produced withinten years after the first printing. Copy 2 is just theopposite, with only one plate bearing engraved captions.Captions were engraved at the wrong end of the copper

plate for Plate 30, resulting in an inverted image whenthe finished prints were bound (it is correctly orientedon plates with handwritten captions). The captions onPlate 53 were also engraved incorrectly, but this canprobably be attributed to Smith who wrote notations onthe wrong end of the original drawing.

Plates in copies 4–7, 10, 13, 15, 20, and 21 (Table 3)are watermarked with a variety of dates. These platesare much more irregular, with captions that areengraved, handwritten, or lacking entirely. Captionvariability is greatest in copies watermarked later than1817. Copies 4 and 13 are extraordinarily similar andwere probably assembled at the same time; the mixtureof plates, board decorations, and yellow marbledendpapers are comparable.

The Dasychira discrepancy. The letterpress forPlate 77 in Insects of Georgia described Phalaenaachatina J. E. Smith, treated by Ferguson (1978) as asynonym of Dasychira meridionalis (Barnes &McDunnough). However, the adult figures on theaccompanying plate are more consistent with Dasychirabasiflava (Packard). Ferguson (1978) also observed thatthese figures resembled D. basiflava, but he wasunaware of valid records of the species from Georgiawhere it is now known to occur. Although describedearlier than D. basiflava, P. achatina is a juniorhomonym and not an available name for this species(Ferguson 1978).

The letterpress for Plate 78 described Phalaenaleucophaea J. E. Smith, now recognized as Dasychiraleucophaea. The figured female is consistent with D.leucophaea, but the male more closely resemblesDasychira manto (Strecker). Abbot's association of twodifferent species is understandable, given that D. mantowas not recognized until 1900. Fortunately, Ferguson(1978) designated the female specimen figured on Plate78 as the lectotype of P. leucophaea.

After consulting a copy of Insects of Georgia,Thaddeus W. Harris identified a species of moth as “theleucophaea…figured in Mr. Abbot's sumptuous work oninsects of Georgia” (Harris 1841). However, Harris'descriptions of the adults and early stages are notconsistent with the figures of P. leucophaea, but ratherthose of Smith's P. achatina. Harris had reversed theidentity of these moths. Over a century later, Ferguson(1978) noted that Plates 77 and 78 appeared to bereversed in a copy of Insects of Georgia that heconsulted in the Beinecke Library, Yale University.Rogers-Price (1983) also observed this discrepancy invarious copies. My analysis of these plates showed themto conform to the adjacent letterpress in most copies ofthe book that bear only 1794 watermarks. However, themajority of copies with later watermarks appeared to


have these plates reversed. A closer inspection revealedthat the plates themselves were not reversed, only thefigures of the adult moths (Figs. 6, 7, 9, 10).

For insight into these alterations, I consulted Abbot'soriginal drawings. The adult figures in both drawingsare circled and named in pencil in Smith's hand (Figs.

FIGS. 5-14. Original drawings and plates of Dasychira from Insects of Georgia. 5, Original drawing for Plate 77*. 6, Uncorrected Plate 77.7, Corrected Plate 77. 8, Original drawing for Plate 78*. 9, Uncorrected Plate 78. 10, Corrected Plate 78. 11, Original male of P. leucophaea(D. manto?) (annotations by J. E. Smith)*. 12, Original female of P. leucophaea*. 13, Original male of P. achatina (D. basiflava)*. 14, Originalfemale of P. achatina (D. basiflava)*. (*The John Work Garrett Library of the Johns Hopkins University).


11–14). The adults on the drawing used for Plate 77 areidentified as “leucophaea” and those on the drawing forPlate 78 are identified as “achatina.” On the drawing forPlate 77, Smith also labeled the plant and early stages as“48” and the adult moths as “49.” He wrote just theopposite on the drawing for Plate 78.

Abbot's manuscript at the Linnean Society holds the

key to understanding Smith's mysterious notations andplate alterations. The numbers “48” and “49”correspond to Abbot's entries for these drawings.Under entry no. 49 (page 22) Abbot wrote, “These ismisplaced by mistake, too late to remedy it in theDrawing. That is the Worm & Chrysalis, & Descriptionof No. 48 ought to be put to the Moths No. 49. And the

TABLE 4. ”Corrections & Emendations” for Insects of Georgia by J. E. Smith, 1798 (Bodleian Library, Oxford University).

Plate no. Depicted insect species Comments by Smith

11 Polygonia interrogationis (Fabricius) Tab. 11. This, I am now convinced, is a distinct species from the true Papilio C aureum ofLinnaeus, and may be called Papilio C fractum. P. N. alis dentatis caudatis fulvis nigromaculatis: posticis subtus C argenteo diffracto notatis. P. C aureum Fab. Ent. emend. V.4. 78.

NOTES: Smith was correct, but he failed to publish his new name. Fabricius published his description of Papilio interrogationis that sameyear. Smith's Latin narrative is a modified version of Fabricius' description of C. aureum with added emphasis on the two-part silvery spot(“argenteo diffracto notalis”) on the ventral hindwing. Harris (1841) compared this spot to a semicolon, but Fabricius' name implies aquestion mark (hence the species' current English name, “Question Mark”). “P. N.” refers to the Linnaean classification categories of “Pa-pilio” and “Nymphales.”

13 Neonympha areolatus (J. E. Smith) Tab. 13. Papilio areolatus, Is supposed by some very intelligent critic, who reviewed thiswork in the Analytical Review for Jany. 1798, to be Pap. Canthus Linn. Syst. Nat. 768.Fab. Ent. emend. V. 4. 157, of which there is no specimen in the Linnaean cabinet, sothat I cannot determine the point.

NOTES: The reviewer wrote, “of the thirteenth plate…we cannot help recognizing the canthus of Linné and Fabricius…The more detaileddescription of Fabricius confirms the identity of the insect in question” (Anonymous 1798). Smith, however, was correct to describe thisas a new species. Papilio canthus Linnaeus is a junior synonym of Satyrodes eurydice (L.).

15 Celastrina neglecta (W. H. Edwards) Tab. 15. Papilio Argiolus. Mr. Jones rather believes this a new species, distinct from the Ar-giolus of Linnaeus.

NOTES: Smith was referring to a letter he received from William Jones dated 9 Sept. 1797 (Linnean Society of London), in which Jones argued, “You are certainly wrong in naming the fly Argiolus Tab. 15. I have both male and female among my drawings without a name. Argiolus is certainly different.”

32 Agrius cingulatus (Fabricius) Tab. 32. Sphinx Convolvuli. The abovementioned writer in the Analytical Review thinks theinsect in this plate the S. cingulata Fab. V. 4. 375, with whose description indeed it admirably accords. If so, Fabricius should have quoted Drury V. 1. t. 25. f. 4 under hiscingulata, & not under Convolvuli. I still however think it scarcely more than a varietyof the latter.

NOTES: The reviewer was correct, asserting, “in our eyes it appears to answer in every respect to the cingulata of Fabricius” (Anonymous1798). Agrius convolvuli (Linnaeus) is an Old World species that does not occur in North America. As noted by Smith, the figure in Drury(1770-1782) represents A. cingulatus, not A. convolvuli.

33 Manduca sexta (Linnaeus) Tab. 33. Sphinx Carolina. The same writer observes that this species ought to be defined abdomine ocellis quinque parium fulvis, not sex parium. There are however in somespecimens rudiments of a sixth pair.

NOTES: The reviewer firmly stated, “It is surely time to expunge the six yellow pairs of spots that still continue to figure away on the abdomenof this sphinx in the systems, and to substitute five” (Anonymous 1798). Smith's interpretation was more accurate. Sphinx carolinaLinnaeus is a junior synonym of Manduca sexta, whose name refers to the usual presence of six (“sex”) pair of fulvous abdominal spots.The reviewer likely confused this species with the similar Manduca quinquemaculata (Haworth), which usually has five (“quinque”) pairof abdominal spots, but was not described until 1803.

34 Manduca rustica (Fabricius) Tab. 34. Sphinx Chionanthi. He remarks also that this insect cannot be the same with Merian's Tab. 5, which, considering the description of the larva, & the account given ofthe devastation it makes in fields of Cassava, must be taken for the rustica of Fabricius.The name Chionanthi will therefore remain with ours, as a species hitherto nondescript.I had not Merian at hand when I described it.

NOTES: It was the reviewer's opinion that “with respect to rustica…it is clear, that the insect represented by Merian on tab. V, and referred toby Fabricius, in his Ent. Emend. iv, 366, cannot be the same with the sph. chionanti [sic]” (Anonymous 1798). These taxa are now con-sidered to be synonymous. The adult moth on Plate 5 in Merian (1705) does appear to be M. rustica.

91 Catocala vidua (J. E. Smith) Tab. 91. Phalaena Vidua. The reviewer supposes this Noctua Epione of Fabricius, but Ithink it scarcely accords with his description or Cramer's figure.

NOTES: The reviewer briefly remarked, “vidua, or what we should call epiope [sic]” (Anonymous 1798). Catocala vidua and Catocala epione(Fabricius) are still recognized as separate species. As Smith observed, the dorsal figure in Cramer (1775-1782, Plate 102, fig. E) is mostconsistent with C. epione.


Worm Chrysalis & Description of this No. 49th to No.48.” Abbot believed that he had mistakenly transposedthe early stages of these species.

Abbot did not suggest that the hostplants werereversed in his drawings for these plates. In fact, heseems to have correctly associated the plants with theadult moths. The hostplant in the drawing for Plate 77is a species of oak, possibly Quercus stellata Wangenh.(Fagaceae). The female moth in this drawing, D.leucophaea, is an oak-feeder. The male, if D. manto,feeds on pine (Pinaceae) (Ferguson 1978). The drawingfor Plate 78 depicts a species of Willow, most likely Salixnigra Marshall (Salicaceae). The moths in the drawingseem to be D. basiflava, which will feed on willow(Ferguson 1978). It would have been far easier,cheaper, and more accurate had Smith left the copperplates as originally etched and simply colored the earlystages to resemble the opposite species.

I investigated Plates 77 and 78 in 52 copies of thebook (Table 2). All 25 copies bearing only 1794watermarks contain corrected versions of the plates thatrectified Abbot's error. Twenty of these copies includeboth corrected plates. Conversely, just nine of the 24copies with later watermarks contain a corrected plateand only one includes both. Two copies have noperceptible watermark dates, but one copy includesboth corrected plates. The vellum copy at theUniversity of Georgia has corrected plates. All theprints of Plates 77 and 78 that I personally examinedbear only 1794 watermarks. Twelve copies examinedduring this study possess mixed versions of these plates,absentmindedly including two illustrations of the samespecies. All the copies examined with watermarks of1817 or later have captions that are handwritten orlacking on Plates 77 and 78.

Despite Abbot's admitted mistake, the copper plateswere initially etched to reproduce the drawings asoriginally rendered. The moth figures were later re-etched on the same copper plates to correct the error.Small imperfections on both versions of the plates showthat the remaining figures were unchanged. Correctedplates were struck with and without engraved captions,thus the moths were re-etched before the captions werepermanently added. Calligraphers were sometimes soconfused about these plates that they incorrectly wrotethe opposite names and numbers on early prints thatlacked engraved captions.

Although Abbot advised that his notes for thesedrawings were also mistakenly reversed, this was notcorrected for the book. Abbot combined adults with the“proper” immatures in other sets of drawings. The copyof Insects of Georgia that Harris (1841) used to identifyD. leucophaea was obviously a later reissue with

uncorrected versions of Plates 77 and 78, therebymisleading him on the identity of D. leucophaea.

Corrections & Emendations. A two-pagehandwritten memorandum by J. E. Smith entitled“Corrections & Emendations” was discovered in thefirst volume of Insects of Georgia in the BodleianLibrary, Oxford University. Signed “J E Smith” anddated “Norwich Feb. 19. 1798,” it is the only knowndocument of its kind. Smith wrote to his wife fromOxford on 26 April 1798 and mentioned that he wasvisiting the “Sherardian Library,” now part of the OxfordUniversity herbaria (Smith correspondence, LinneanSociety of London). He may have presented this copyof the book at that time.

Smith's comments are mostly in response to ananonymous review of Insects of Georgia that waspublished a month earlier (Anonymous 1798). Smithreconsidered some of his identifications in the book andproposed a new Latin name for the butterfly on Plate11. The memo was written about six months after thebook first appeared and offers valuable insight intoSmith's perception of seven species. Few Britishnaturalists of the period could have penned such anerudite review of Insects of Georgia. The author, whomSmith called “some intelligent critic,” was most likelyEdward Donovan, who was actively engaged inpublishing books on British and foreign insects at thattime. Donovan's prose was similarly eloquent and hewas prone to extensive footnoting, which is also evidentin the review. Donovan was a great admirer of Linnaeusand Fabricius, who were often mentioned in the review,particularly within the footnotes. Moreover, Donovan(1798) discussed Insects of Georgia and mentioned thework of Abbot, acknowledging, “our cabinet is indebtedto his labours for several hundred species, altogethernew in Europe.” The remarks of Smith and thereviewer are reproduced in Table 4.

Spine titles and authorship. Surviving copies ofInsects of Georgia that are thought to possess originalbindings vary considerably in how the title and authorwere printed on the spine. Copies attributed to earlyissues often exhibit very similar titles, such as “Smith'sAmerican Insects,” “Abbot's American Insects,”“Abbot's and Smith's American Insects,” and “Insects ofAmerica.” The binding on the original drawings givento Mariamne Johnes is consistent with other earlycopies, reading “Smith's American Insects.” The copywith the vellum plates reads “Abbot's AmericanInsects.” Spine titles on later copies are more variable,reading “Insects of Georgia,” “Lepidopterous Insects,”“Lepidopterous Insects of Georgia,” “Natural History ofInsects,” and “Natural History of LepidopterousInsects.” Author designations also vary, with later copies


often citing them separately from the title, as “Abbot,”“Smith,” or “Smith & Abbot.” These differencesprobably reflect the changing titles on the printer'sboards over the many years that the book was issued andbookbinders simply reproduced them as given.

Irregular author attributions are also reflected in theliterature, with most crediting Smith & Abbot, Abbot &Smith, or just Smith. In the preface of the book, Smithcharacterized himself as merely the “Editor,” leadingKirby & Spence (1815–1826) to cite the book as“Smith's Abbott's Insects of Georgia.” Westwood (1840)could not decide who the senior author was, citing bothSmith & Abbot and Abbot & Smith. Duncan (1841)considered Smith to be the junior author who“superintended the arrangement.” Since about 1980,the book trades have consistently credited Abbot orAbbot & Smith in sales lists and catalogs. I havefollowed dos Passos (1958) and Wilkinson (1981) whoawarded authorship to Smith (as editor) and Abbot (asartist/observer). The double-t spelling of Abbot's nameremains a common error. Some authors, such asWestwood (1840) and Audubon (1838), included boththe correct and double-t versions within the samepublications. The incorrect spelling is even printed onthe spines of some copies of Insects of Georgia.

Ownership. Over the years, there have been manydistinguished owners of Insects of Georgia. Many wereBritish, Irish, or Russian royalty, who ranked among thefew that could afford such an expensive luxury.Bookplates in surviving copies reveal the followingaristocratic owners (numbers correspond to copies inTable 2): Count Nikolai Petrovich Sheremetev(1751–1809) (27), Richard, VII Viscount Fitzwilliam ofMerrion (1745–1816) (20), Valentine Browne, 1st Earlof Kenmare (1754–1812) (26), George John, 2nd EarlSpencer (1758–1834) (33), Walter Francis Montagu-Douglas-Scott, 5th Duke of Buccleuch andQueensberry (1806–1884) (25), William WilloughbyCole, 3rd Earl of Enniskillen (1807–1886) (65), Thomasde Gray, 6th Baron of Walsingham (1843–1919) (46),Count Sergei Dmitrievich Sheremetev (1844–1918)(27), and Lionel Walter Rothschild, 2nd BaronRothschild of Tring (1868–1937) (17, copy 2). Othernotable owners were Georgia philanthropist WymberleyJones De Renne (1853–1926) (22, copy 3), Harvardzoologist Walter Faxon (1848–1920) (18), Icelandicentrepreneur Hjörtur Thórdarson (1867–1945) (43),and Coca-Cola President Charles Howard Candler(1878–1957) (71). Entomologists, both professional andamateur, who possessed personal copies include WilliamJones (?–1818) (lost?), Jean B. A. D. de Boisduval(1799–1879) (Guenée 1852; lost?), Thomas B. Wilson(1807–1865) (19), William J. Holland (1848–1932) (13),

Ellison A. Smyth, Jr. (1863–1941) (42), William Barnes(1860–1930) (35), Edward O. Essig (1884–1964) (3),Cyril F. dos Passos (1887–1986) (64), Lionel G. Higgins(1891–1985) (31), and John Hinchliff (1915–1999) (31).Thomas de Gray and Lionel W. Rothschild were alsoaccomplished amateur lepidopterists. I am extremelyfortunate to have recently obtained my own copy (34),originally owned by the Faculty of Physicians andSurgeons, Glasgow, Scotland. My curiosity about itswatermarks prompted this study.

Plate sets. Individual plates from Insects of Georgiawere evidently offered for sale shortly after productionof the book was discontinued. The only knownsurviving set of such plates was once owned byAmerican lepidopterist Cyril F. dos Passos and is nowdeposited in the Thomas Rare Book Library,Wittenberg University, Springfield, Ohio. It iscomprised of 73 bound plates, including one duplicate.According to a typed and handwritten note pasted ontoa flyleaf, dos Passos purchased the set unbound in 1961from London bookseller Wheldon & Wesley for thepaltry sum of $56.00 US. Wheldon & Wesley wasundoubtedly responsible for the typed portion of thisnote, as it includes the UK spelling of “coloured.”Handwritten additions and corrections appear to havebeen added by dos Passos. The note describes the set as“An interesting collection as it represents a secondissue, apparently unrecorded. Many of the plates arewatermarked between 1820 and 1828.” This is theearliest known direct reference to later watermarks onplates of Insects of Georgia. It is astounding thatcomparable watermarks in copies of the book werenever mentioned in the literature during the preceding130 years.

This was the only incomplete set of plates known toWilkinson (1981, 1982), but a similar set with 37 plateswas sold at auction in 1980 (Heath 1981). A single platefrom an unidentified source was also figured by Rogers-Price (1983). The Wittenberg set includes Plates 1–14,16–22, 24–26, 31 (2 ea), 32, 33, 36–38, 40, 42, 44–49,55, 56, 58, 60–76, 84–87, 89, 90, 94–96, 98, 100–102,and 104. The set sold in 1980 included Plates 1–12, 22,25, 26, 32–34, 36, 40, 44–47, 49, 55, 60–62, 65, 76, 89,94, and 101–103 (Heath 1981). Ten plates in theWittenberg set (nos. 1, 6, 12, 18, 25, 32, 33, 45, 46, 61)bear an inscription across the foot of the sheet thatreads, “Sold by R Martin. Book & Printseller. 47. GreatQueen Strt: Lincolns Inn Fields” (Fig. 15). Seventeenplates in the auctioned set also possessed this inscription(Heath 1981). Most of the plates in the Wittenberg set,particularly those with Martin's inscriptions, werecolored with imprecise hues and decidedly sloppy paintapplication (Figs. 16, 17). Although the “Sold by R.


Martin” inscriptions resemble engraved imprints, theyare handwritten in ink and some still possess penciledguidelines. I recently located an 1819 landscape printand an 1828 map that bear the same “Sold by R.Martin” inscriptions (at the University of Portsmouthand a private printseller in London). Rogers-Price(1983) proposed that Martin was the English painter oflandscapes, animals, and figurative subjects listed byWood (1978). However, “Robson's London Directory”for the years 1825–1826 and 1830–1839 listed a bookand print seller by the name of Robert Martin whooperated primarily from 47 Great Queen Street,Lincoln's Inn Fields, Holborn, London. The individuallisted by Wood (1978) was another Robert Martin(son?) who conducted business from a nearby address inHolborn. He was listed separately from the booksellerin 1825–1826 as a “lithographic printer” and as an“artist, engraver, lithographic, & letterpress & copperplate printer” in the London postal directory for 1841.The bookseller was no longer listed in 1841.

Rogers-Price (1983) supposed that Martin acquiredthe copper plates, engraved his name, and producedrestrikes of the prints for individual sale. However,Martin's inscriptions are handwritten and the plates inthe Wittenberg set share characteristics with thosecontained in later copies of the book. Twelve plateshave watermarked dates of 1820, 1821, 1822, and 1828.The plates in the auctioned set were similarly dated1822–1825 (Heath 1981). The watermarks of theWittenberg set include “J Whatman/1821” “JWhatman/1822,” and “J Whatman/Turkey Mill/1822.”Although Wilkinson (1981) attributed all watermarks toWhatman, plates dated 1820 and 1828 are printed onpaper with “S” watermarks. Restrikes would all possessengraved captions, but three of these plates lackcaptions. This evidence refutes the notion that Martinproduced restrikes.

Like modern printsellers, Martin probably removedthe majority of his prints from broken copies of thebook. He also appears to have purchased residual stockof uncolored prints after the last copies of Insects ofGeorgia were assembled. These he colored himself,adding his “Sold by R. Martin” inscription to most ofthem. The latest watermarked date encountered duringthis study is 1828, associated with Plate 45 in theWittenberg set. This plate is badly colored andpossesses Martin's “Sold by” inscription, offeringadditional evidence that Martin obtained residual printsafter the book was discontinued. Perhaps due to poorsales, or at the request of customers, Martin combinedhis remaining inventory into sets of assorted plates.Penciled numbers on many plates in the Wittenberg setmay represent Martin's inventory tally.

The true identity of Papilio bathyllus J. E.Smith. Original drawings can be instrumental indetermining the identity of taxa described and figuredin early color plate books (Calhoun 2003, 2004, 2005).Despite their talent, it was difficult for engravers toprecisely reproduce every aspect of the originaldrawings. Some loss of detail was inherent in thisprocess. Moreover, colorists frequently exaggerated ormasked pattern elements, further obscuring the identityof figured species and leading to confusion over thestatus of taxa originally described in these works. Toappreciate the phenotypic characters of the speciesdepicted in Insects of Georgia, it is important to consultthe original drawings. While studying the entomologicalworks of Jacob Hübner, Hemming (1937) also foundthat “the identity of a specimen figured may be readilyresolved if the original drawing is available for study.”

Plate 22 of Insects of Georgia portrays a dorsal male,dorsal female, and ventral female that Smith describedas Papilio bathyllus, now recognized as Thorybesbathyllus (Fig. 18). The female figures on the platepossess offset rows of forewing subapical spots. Thelowermost spot is distally removed, but is more distinctin some prints than others, depending on the quality ofthe paint application. In his treatment of T. bathyllus,Scudder (1888–1889) referred to rows of spots on theforewings as “three or four closely connected whitespots, the lowermost a little smaller than the others andinclined to be removed further toward the tip.” Bell(1923) considered these offset subapical spots, thelowest “slightly out of line toward the outer margin,” tobe a characteristic of his new species, Thorybes confusisBell. Forbes (1960) described these spots on T. confusisas tending to “curve out and point up.” Gatrelle (2001)concluded that these offset spots are reliable indifferentiating T. confusis from T. bathyllus, whichconsistently has aligned spots. The male holotype of T.confusis in the American Museum of Natural History, aswell as five paratypes in the Carnegie Museum ofNatural History (figured in Holland 1931, Plate L, figs.1, 2) and the National Museum of Natural History(USNM), all exhibit offset rows of subapical spots. Thefemale figures on Plate 22 also possess narrow forewingmedian spots, which is another characteristic of T.confusis. I consulted Abbot's original drawing todetermine if these pattern elements were intentional orartifacts of the engraving process (Fig. 19). Abbot'soriginal figures possess these features and appear to bemost consistent with T. confusis (Fig. 20). Thorybesconfusis is distributed across the southeastern UnitedStates and still occurs in eastern Georgia where Abbotpresumably collected his specimens (Harris 1972).

The figure of the dorsal female has position


FIGS. 18-21. Thorybes illustrations. 18, Plate 22 of Papilio bathyllus (arrow indicates dorsal female). 19, Original drawing for Plate 22*.20, Original dorsal female of P. bathyllus (T. confusis)* (arrow indicates offset subapical spot). 21, Original dorsal male of P. bathyllus*,representing the lectotype. (*The John Work Garrett Library of the Johns Hopkins University).

precedence on both the original drawing andcorresponding Plate 22 in Insects of Georgia (Figs. 18,19). Accordingly, it can be argued that the name Papiliobathyllus applies to the species now recognized as T.confusis. No name-bearing type of P. bathyllus exists,but this name has been associated with actual specimensfor 207 years, including 82 years after the description ofT. confusis. The priority replacement of the name T.confusis by P. bathyllus would result in considerableconfusion. To promote nomenclatural stability, I herebydesignate Abbot's male specimen, best portrayed in hisoriginal drawing (Fig. 21), as the LECTOTYPE ofPapilio bathyllus J. E. Smith. The forewing pattern of

the illustrated figure is somewhat conceptual, but thespecies is still readily identifiable and easilydifferentiated from males of T. confusis, as well as thethird related species in Georgia, Thorybes pylades(Scudder). This figure was consulted by Smith for hisoriginal description and its etched version has beenassociated with the name P. bathyllus for over twocenturies. The specimen that Abbot illustratedprobably no longer exists. The type locality of P.bathyllus is restricted to Burke County, Georgia, whereAbbot lived when he completed this drawing. Thelectotype that Ferguson (1978) designated for Phalaenaleucophaea is likewise better portrayed in Abbot's

FIGS 15-17. Plate details. 15, Inscription from R. Martin plate set*. 16, Ventral male Danaus gilippus (Cramer), Plate 7 from a copy ofInsects of Georgia. 17, Poorly colored ventral male D. gilippus, Plate 7 from the R. Martin plate set*. (*Thomas Library, WittenbergUniversity).


original drawing, which was unknown to Ferguson.Published figures of these species in Insects of Georgiavary from print to print, offering less consistentrenditions of Abbot's specimens.

DISCUSSION

Evidence confirms that complete “new” copies ofInsects of Georgia were assembled for over threedecades. Watermarks alone reveal that nearly 50percent of the copies of Insects of Georgia examinedduring this study were assembled after 1797. Seven ofthe eight auction records that refer to watermarks alsoindicate reissues (Table 2). However, dated watermarkscannot be exclusively relied upon to determine issuestatus. Only four of the 13 copies with 1794 watermarksin Table 3 are thought to be first issues. Based onevidence accumulated during this study, the following isa reasonable account of the production of Insects ofGeorgia.

The first copies were assembled during the summerof 1797. Plates in these copies bear watermarks of 1794or undated watermarks suggestive of earlier paper. Thecopper plates were most likely inked with a dabber(dauber), which restricted the ink to the central figuresof insects and plants. As a result, the signatures thatengraver John Harris etched at the foot of the copperplates did not usually appear on these prints. Many ofthese prints received handwritten names and numbers.Copies 3, 11, 12, and 14 (Table 3) contain only plates inthis format and likely represent first issues. Copy 12 isthe only one known to be deposited in Georgia that canbe deemed a first issue.

Plates 77 and 78 were struck using the originalversions of their copper plates, but the resulting printswere not used for early copies of the book. The mothson these copper plates were re-etched and the resultingnew prints were used for initial issues. Captions wereengraved on all the copper plates before February 1798,providing consistency and alleviating the need forcalligraphers. Unused prints that lacked engravedcaptions were placed into storage. The presence ofengraved captions required that greater portions of thecopper plates had to be inked, thereby revealing moreof the signatures that Harris etched at the foot of thecopper plates. The added cost of employingcalligraphers and letter engravers, as well as striking allnew plates, probably contributed to the financial losslamented by publisher James Edwards.

The foreign subject matter of Insects of Georgia wasnot as popular among British and European patrons asSmith's botanical works. As a result, production of thebook may have been suspended after 1798. This issuggested by the disposal of the bound original drawings

by publisher James Edwards in June 1799. A largeamount of letterpress and printed plates remainedunused. Probably between 1801 and 1804 a set ofprints were stuck on vellum, colored by engraver JohnHarris, and bound with letterpress into a copy of Insectsof Georgia. These stunning volumes were possiblycreated as a device to generate new orders for the book.Alternatively, they were produced as a retirement giftfor James Edwards in 1804.

It may have been after the retirement of Edwardsthat residual letterpress and prints were brought out ofstorage and additional copies of the book wereassembled. Prints with engraved captions werepreferred for these copies, but too few remained. Tocomplete these new copies and minimize costs, a fewearlier prints without engraved captions were also used.Most of these early prints possessed handwrittencaptions. Volumes consisting of mixed plates from earlyimpressions were probably produced on an irregularbasis for up to twenty years under the pretext of havingbeen assembled in 1797. By about 1820, early printswith engraved captions were nearly depleted, so newprints were struck on paper dated 1817. More of theearly prints without engraved captions were used tocomplete these new copies. This resulted in a limitedissue of books that included plates dated only 1794 and1817.

Additional copies of the book were assembled ca.1825–1830. An even greater quantity of early printswithout engraved captions was combined with newprints to produce these volumes. Later copies of thebook therefore contain an assortment of prints,effectively representing anthologies of precedingimpressions. It is unknown if colorists utilized patternplates to maintain consistency from issue to issue, or ifthey simply consulted earlier colored prints. Many ofthe earlier prints may also have been colored just priorto use for later reissues. A large number of copies wereassembled during this period, possibly in response tothe growing popularity of entomological themes.Ornithologist John J. Audubon was living in Londonaround this time and observed, “Insects, reptiles andfishes are now the rage, and these fly, swim or crawl onpages innumerable in every bookseller's window” (Hart-Davis 2004). The additional steps of printing andcoloring plates tripled production costs (Swainson1840). The use of residual material probably allowedreissues of Insects of Georgia to be offered at a lowerprice. Bohn (1841) listed a probable reissue copy foronly £7, 7s.

The letterpress was probably consumed around 1830.Unused plates were sold to Robert Martin and possiblyother printsellers who sought to take advantage of the


market interest in zoological prints. Referring to printsor complete copies of the book still available in Londonduring the 1830s, Swainson (1840) observed, “There aremany inferior copies on sale among the booksellers,which are offered at a low price, but the originalcoloured impressions are seldom met with.”

Publisher John White retired in 1816, thus it wasmost likely Cadell & Davies who gained primary controlover production of the book after the retirement of J.Edwards in 1804. After the death of Davies, Cadellcontinued doing business until his own death in 1836.Unfortunately, the fate of the copper plates remains amystery; they may have been discarded after the deathof Cadell. It is unknown how many copies of Insects ofGeorgia were ultimately assembled. There areundoubtedly additional surviving copies of Insects ofGeorgia, while many others have been lost, broken, ordestroyed. It is reasonable to conclude that no morethan 250 sets were ever produced. Perhaps less than 50were offered in 1797.

To imply greater value, some modern booksellershave listed copies of Insects of Georgia as “firsteditions”. Despite differences on the plates, no editionstatement ever appeared and the letterpress wasunaltered throughout the life of the book. Five “Errata”on page 214 remained uncorrected. Early publishersroutinely offered reissues of books without anyindication that they were produced after the initialpublication date. All copies of Insects of Georgia shouldbe considered as part of the same single edition.

Insects of Georgia remains a revered masterpiece.The accolades of a contemporary reviewer still resonateafter two centuries: “We cannot, however, forbearcongratulating the dilettante and the student on thepleasure and information they are about to receive froma sedulous perusal and judicious contemplation of suchan assemblage of natural curiosities; and we return ourthanks to the publisher, equally for the spirit with whichhe rescued so valuable a collection from obscurity, andthe perseverance and taste with which hesuperintended the execution of the whole” (Anonymous1798).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the many patient librarians and otherswho responded to my requests for information on survivingcopies of Insects of Georgia. Their willingness to participate inthis project far exceeded my expectations and greatly enhancedthe quality of this study. I am grateful to the following peoplewho provided data on books and prints: Warren N. Baggett, Pe-ter Berg, Nina Bozak, Nancy Davis Bray, Stella M. Brecknell,Michel Brisebois, Mary Ellen Brooks, Bernadette G. Callery,James Cartwright, Elizabeth Chenault, Linda McNair Cohen,Roberta Copp, David W. Corson, Susan Danforth, ClaudineDavie, Erin Davis, Mary DeJong, Gina Douglas, Elizabeth B.Dunn, Theo Dunnet, David Faulds, Susan Fugate, Moira Goff,

Geoffrey Groom, Thomas Haffner, Melinda Hayes, Donald A.Heald, Florence Hinchliff, Elizabeth Moore Hunt, D. CarolJones, David Kessler, Richard Kielb, Danielle Kovacs, HelmutW. Lang, Catherine A. Lee, Marie Long, Linda Lott, PatriciaMadaire, Béatrice Mairé, Diane Mallstrom, Ellen Mann, EileenC. Mathias, Wilber E. Meneray, Jacqueline Y. Miller, Lee D.Miller, Linda L. Oestry, Leslie K. Overstreet, David Pavelich,Berit Pederson, Stacy C. Peeples, Kristin C. Petyak, JulieRamwell, Jennie Rathbun, John F. Rathe, Heather Riser, DavidRobinson, Nicholas R. Robinson, Helmut Rohlfing, SandraRoscoe, Allard Schierenberg, Patrick G. Scott, Barbara C. Sir-mans, Suzanne Smailes, Nicholas Smith, Elaine B. Smyth,Nancy Stamper, Susan Stead, Patrick J. Stevens, Anna Stoute,Samuel A. Streit, Janice Strickland, Bruce W. Swann, SuzyTaraba, Melissa Vetter, Micki Waldrop, Martha Whittaker, CaryWilkins, Rutherford W. Witthus, Robert Young, Timothy Young,and Tanya Zanish-Belcher. For kindly permitting access tobooks and manuscripts in their care, I thank Mary Ellen Brooks(Hargrett Library, Univ. of Georgia), Roberta Copp (South Car-oliniana Library, Univ. of South Carolina), Gina Douglas (Lin-nean Society of London), Richard Keilb (Entomology Library,The Natural History Museum, London), Amy K. Kimball &Heidi Herr (The Sheridan Libraries, The Johns Hopkins Univ.),Valerie-Anne Lutz (American Philosophical Society), Eileen C.Mathias (Ewell Sale Stewart Library, Academy of Natural Sci-ences of Philadelphia), Wilber E. Meneray (Howard-TiltonMemorial Library, Tulane University), Lee D. Miller & Jacque-line Y. Miller (McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiver-sity, Florida Museum of Natural History), Leslie Overstreet(Cullman Library, National Museum of National History),Patrick G. Scott (Thomas Cooper Library, Univ. of South Car-olina), as well as librarians of the Library of Congress (Washing-ton, D. C.) and Tampa-Hillsborough Public Library (Tampa,Florida). Gina Douglas also granted permission to reproduceexcerpts of Abbot's manuscript. As always, the help of BeverlyL. Pope (Div. of Plant Industry Library, Gainesville, Florida) wasinvaluable in providing copies of required publications. Eliza-beth B. Dunn and Sam Hammond (Rare Book, Manuscript, andSpecial Coll. Library, Duke Univ.) helped me obtain a rare pub-lication and discussed aspects of early sales of Insects of Georgia.Mark A. Garland (Div. of Plant Industry, Gainesville, Florida)supplied numerous botanical identifications, always with enthu-siasm and interest. James K. Adams (Dalton State College) andJohn R. Rawlins (Carnegie Museum of Natural History) helpedimmensely with Dasychira identifications. David M. Wrightconfirmed the identity of Celastrina neglecta. Peg Hart (Ameri-can Museum of Natural History) furnished a photograph of theholotype of Thorybes confusis. For searching books and manu-scripts for relevant information, I thank Alison Bailey (BritishLibrary), Linda Brooks (Linnean Society of London), JeffreyBarr & Florence Turcott (Smathers Library, Univ. of Florida),Vicky Bohm (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York), ThomasR. Caswell (Architecture and Fine Arts Library, Univ. ofFlorida), Diane Foster (Dirac Science Library, Florida StateUniv.), Dottie Riemenschneider (Science Library, University ofMichigan), William Svitavsky (Olin Library, Rollins College),and Paul Cooper & Judith Magee (The Natural History Mu-seum, London). Caroline Hay, Lauren Kantor, and LaurenPenza researched sales of Christie's auction house. Floyd &June Preston and Robert M. Pyle directed me to a privatelyowned copy of Insects of Georgia. John Van Hook (LibraryWest, Univ. of Florida) and Ian Maxted (Exeter County Library,Exeter, UK) bestowed thoughts and opinions on early book pro-duction. Terry Wells (British Assoc. of Paper Historians) helpedwith watermarks. Jennifer Macve shared historical informationon the Johnes family and their estate of Hafod. Sara Lee Branchand Charles Parry (National Library of Wales) answered in-quires about books owned by Mariamne Johnes. Peter O'-Dunoghue and Robert L. Parry assisted with engravers. JuneFarris (Univ. of Chicago) and Helen Sullivan (Univ. of Illinois)


provided Russian translations and biographical facts about Russ-ian Prince M. A. Golitsyn. Phillip R. Ackery (The Natural His-tory Museum, London), as well as John M. Burns and Robert K.Robbins (National Museum of Natural History, USNM), per-mitted access to the Lepidoptera collections under their care. Iexpress my sincere gratitude to Jonathan P. Pelham and DavidM. Wright for critically reviewing the manuscript. Finally, Ithank my wife, Laurel, for indulging my globe-trotting entomo-logical pursuits. I think she would agree that living in the pastcan sometimes be an enormous challenge in the present.

LITERATURE CITED

AIKIN, A. L. 1773. Poems. Joseph Johnson, London. 138 pp. ALLEN, T. J., J. P. BROCK, & J. GLASSBERG. 2005. Caterpillars in the

field and garden: a field guide to the butterfly caterpillars ofNorth America. Oxford Univ. Pr., New York, New York. 232 pp.

ALLIBONE, S. A. 1886. A critical dictionary of English literature andBritish and American authors living and deceased from the earli-est accounts to the latter half of the nineteenth century. Contain-ing over forty-six thousand articles (authors) with forty indexes ofsubjects. Vol. 1. J. B. Lippincott Co., London. 1154 pp.

ANONYMOUS. 1798. Art. 1. The Natural History of the Rarer Lepi-dopterous Insects of Georgia. Including their systematic charac-ters, the particulars of their several metamorphoses, and theplants on which they feed. Collected from the observations ofMr. John Abbot, many years resident in that country, by JamesEdward Smith M.D.F.R.S. &tc. 2 vols. Folio. 208 pages, and 104plates. Price 2l, 2s. Edwards. 1797. Analytical Review, or historyof literature, domestic and foreign, on an enlarged plan. Contain-ing scientific abstracts of important and interesting works pub-lished in English; a general account of such as are of less conse-quence, with short characters; and notices, or reviews, of valuableforeign books; also the literary intelligence of Europe, &c. FromJanuary to June 1798, inclusive. 27:1–6.

——. 1807a. Catalogue of the library of the Linnean Society, contin-ued from page 313 of Vol. VII of the society's transactions. Trans.Linn. Soc. London 8:360–362.

——. 1807b. Catalogue of books belonging to the South-CarolinaCollege library. D. & J. Faust. 36 pp.

——. 1867. Obituary articles of fellow deceased. Sir William JacksonHooker. Proc. Royal Soc. London 15:xxv–xx.

AUDUBON, J. J. 1827–1838. The birds of America: from original drawings by John James Audubon. 4 vols. Publ. by the author. 435pl.

——. 1838. Ornithological biography, or an account of the habits ofthe birds of the United States of America, accompanied by de-scriptions of the objects represented in the work entitled birds ofAmerica, together with an account of the digestive organs ofmany of the species, illustrated by engravings on wood. Vol. IV.Adam & Charles Black, Edinburgh. 618 pp.

BALSTON, J. N. 1992. The elder James Whatman, England's greatestpaper maker (1702–1759). A study of eighteenth century paper-making technology and its effect on a critical phase in the historyof English white paper manufacture. 2 vols. Publ. by the author,Kent, England. 692 pp.

——. 1998. The Whatmans and wove paper, its invention and devel-opment in the west. Research into the origins of wove paper andof genuine loom-woven wire cloth. Publ. by the author, Kent,England. 333 pp.

BELL, E. L. 1923. A new species of Hesperiidae. Trans. Amer. Ento-mol. Soc. 48:205–206.

BÉNÉZIT, E. 1966. Dictionnaire critique et documentaire des pein-tres, sculpteurs, dessinateurs et graveurs de tous les temps et detous les pays par un groupe d'écrivains spécialists français etétrangers. Nouvelle édition. Vol. 4. Forand.-Houdon. LibrairieGründ, Paris. 771 pp.

BENT, W. 1799. The London catalogue of books, with their sizes andprices. Corrected to September MDCCXCIX. M. Brown, Lon-don. 166 pp.

BESTERMAN, T. (ed.). 1938. The publishing firm of Cadell & Davies.

Select correspondence and accounts 1793–1836. Oxford Univ.Pr., London. 189 pp.

BISBORT, A. & L. B. OSBORNE. 2000. The nation's library: the Libraryof Congress, Washington, D.C. Lib. Congress, Washington, D.C.160 pp.

BOISDUVAL, J. B. A. D. DE & J. E. LE CONTE. 1829–[1837]. Histoiregénérale et iconographie des Lépidoptères et des chenilles del'Amérique septentrionale. Librairie Encyclopédique de Roret,Paris. 228 pp., 78 pl.

BOHN, H. G. 1841. A catalogue of books. H. G. Bohn, London. 1948pp.

——. 1865. The bibliographer's manual of English literature con-taining an account of rare, curious, and useful books, published inor relating to Great Britain and Ireland, from the invention ofprinting; with bibliographical and critical notices, collations of therarer articles, and the prices at which they have been sold. Newedition, revised, corrected and enlarged; with an appendix relat-ing to the books of literary and scientific societies. Vol. 1. A-C. G.Bell & Daldy, London. 576 pp.

BRITTEN, J. 1898. Smith's Georgian plants. J. Bot. British & Foreign,London 36:297–302.

BRUNET, J-C. 1865. Manuel du libraire et de l'amateur de livres. Vol.5. Firmin-Didot, Paris. 900 pp.

CALHOUN, J. V. 2003. The history and true identity of Melitaea isme-ria (Boisduval & Le Conte): a remarkable tale of duplication, mis-interpretation and presumption. J. Lepid. Soc. 57:204–219.

——. 2004. Histoire générale et iconographie des Lépidoptéres etdes chenilles de l'Amérique septentrionale by Boisduval & LeConte (1829–[1837]): original drawings for the engraved platesand the true identities of four figured taxa. J. Lepid. Soc.58:143–168.

——. 2005. An early drawing of Chlosyne gorgone (Hübner)(Nymphalidae) by John Abbot. J. Lepid. Soc. 59:121–122.

CHAPMAN, A. W. 1860. Flora of the southern United States: contain-ing an abridged description of the flowering plants and ferns ofTennessee, North and South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Missis-sippi, and Florida: arranged according to the natural system. Ivi-son, Phinney, New York. 621 pp.

CHRISTIE'S (firm). 2002. Printed books and manuscripts from BeriahBotfield's library at Longleat, Thursday, 13 June 2002. Christie's,London. 315 pp.

——. 2003. Valuable printed books and manuscripts, including natural history. Wednesday, 19 November 2003. Christie's, Lon-don. 150 pp.

CHURCHILL, W. A. 1935. Watermarks in paper in Holland, England,France, etc., in the XVII and XVIII centuries and their intercon-nection. Hertzberger & Co., Amsterdam. 94 pp., 432 pl.

CRAMER, P. 1775–1782. De uitlandische Kapellen voorkamende inde drie Waereld-deelen Asia, Africa en America. 4 vols. S. J.Baald; Utrecht, Barthelemy Wild., Amsterdam. 252 pp., 400 pl.

DANCE, S. P. 1978. The art of natural history: animal illustrators andtheir work. Overlook Pr., Woodstock, New York. 224 pp.

DAWSON, W. R. (ed.). 1934. Catalogue of the manuscripts in the library of the Linnean Society of London. Part 1: The Smith papers (the correspondences and miscellaneous papers of SirJames Edward Smith, M.D., F.R.S., first President of the So-ciety). Linn. Soc. London. 114 pp.

DONOVAN, E. 1798. An epitome of the natural history of the insectsof China: comprising figures and descriptions of upwards of onehundred new, singular, and beautiful species; together with somethat are of importance in medicine, domestic economy, &c. Thefigures are accurately drawn, engraved, and coloured, from spec-imens of the insects; the descriptions are arranged according tothe system of Linnaeus, with references to the writings of Fabri-cius, and other systematic authors. Publ. by the author, London.[98] pp, [50] pls.

DOS PASSOS, C. F. (ed.). 1951. The entomological reminiscences ofWilliam Henry Edwards. J. NY Entomol. Soc. 59:129–186.

——. 1958 [1959]. The authorship of the names proposed in TheNatural History of the Rarer Lepidopterous Insects of Georgia


(1797). Lepid. News. 12:191–182. DOW, R. P. 1914. John Abbot, of Georgia. J. NY Entomol. Soc.

22:65–69.DRURY, D. 1770–1782. Illustrations of natural history. Wherein are

exhibited upwards of two hundred and forty figures of exotic insects, according to their different genera; very few of whichhave hitherto been figured by any author, being engraved andcoloured from nature, with the greatest accuracy, and under theauthor's own inspection, on fifty copper-plates. With a particulardescription of each insect: interspersed with remarks and reflec-tions on the nature and properties of many of them. B. White,London. 3 vols. 296pp, 150 pl.

DUNCAN, J. 1841. Entomology. Exotic moths. Naturalists' Library.Vol. 7. 229 pp., 34 pl.

DUNTHORNE, G. 1938. Flower and fruit prints of the 18th and early19th centuries. Their history, makers and uses, with a catalogueraisonné of the works in which they are found. Publ. by the au-thor, Washington, D.C. 275 pp.

EAMES, W. 1892. Bibliotheca Americana. A dictionary of books relat-ing to America, from its discovery to the present time. Vol. 20.Simms (W. G) to Smith (Seiba). W. E. Rudge, New York. 577 pp.

ELLIOTT, S. 1816–1824. A sketch of the botany of South-Carolina andGeorgia. 2 vols. J. R. Schenck, Charleston, South Carolina. 1349pp.

EDWARDS, W. H. 1894. Description of the preparatory stages of Phyciodes carlota, Reakirt (Charidryas ismeria, Scudder). Can.Entomol. 26:3–8.

EWAN, J. 1971. Editor's introduction, pp. ix–xxxvii. In Ewan, J. (ed.),Stephen Elliott: sketch of the botany of South-Carolina andGeorgia. Classica Botanica Americana. Vol. 6 (in 2 vols.). HafnerPubl. Co., New York.

——. 1985. The natural history of John Abbot: influences and somequestions. Bartonia 51:37–45.

FABRICIUS, J. C. 1938. Systema glossatorum: secundum ordines, genera, species, adiectis synonymis, locis, observationibus, descriptionibus, pp. [i]–xii, 13–112. In Bryk, F., J. Chr. Fabricius,systema glossatorum (Brunovici 1807). Gustav Feller, Neubran-denburg, Germany.

FERGUSON, D. C. 1978. The moths of America north of Mexico. Fas-cicle 22.2: Noctuoidea: Lymantriidae. E. W. Classey, London. 110pp., 18 pl.

FORBES, W. T. M. 1960. Lepidoptera of New York and neighboringstates: Agaristidae through Nymphalidae including butterflies.Part IV. Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. Sta., Ithaca, New York. 188 pp.

GAGE, A. T. & W. T. STEARN. 1988. A bicentenary history of the Lin-nean Society of London. Academic Pr., London. 242 pp.

GASCOIGNE, B. 2004. How to identify prints, a complete guide tomanual and mechanical processes from woodcut to inkjet. Secondedition. Thames and Hudson, New York. 216 pp.

GATRELLE, R. R. 1999. Hübner's helicta: the forgotten Neonympha.The recognition and elevation of Neonympha helicta (Nymphali-dae: Satyridae) to specific status. The designation of neotypes forN. helicta and N. areolatus. The subspecific transfer of septentri-onalis to helicta and the description of a third helicta subspeciesfrom South Florida. Taxon. Rpt. 1(8):1–8.

——. 2001. Thorybes clarification. Intl. Lepid. Surv. Newsletter3(1):1–2.

GILBERT, P. 1998. John Abbot: birds, butterflies and other wonders.Merrell Holberton, London. 128 pp.

GUENÉE, A. 1852. Vol. 5. Noctuélites I. In Boisduval, J. B. A. D. de& A. Guenée, Suites à Buffon. Histoire naturelle des insects. Spé-cies général des Lépidoptères. Librairie Encyclopédique deRoret, Paris.

GUNZBOURG, C. 1866. Catalogue des livres de la bibliothéque duPrince Michel Galitzin, rédigé d'après ses notes autographes.L'institut des langues orientales, Moscow. 492 pp.

HAGEN, H. A. 1862–1863. Bibliotheca entomologica. Die litteraturüber das ganze gebiet der entomologie bis zum jahre 1862. 2 vols.Wilhelm Englemann, Leipzig, Germany.

HANDOVER, P. M. 1960. Printing in London from 1476 to modern

times. Competitive practice and technical invention in the tradeof book and bible printing, periodical production jobbing etc.Harvard Univ. Pr., Cambridge, Massachusetts. 224 pp.

HARRIS, L. 1931. A list of the butterflies of Georgia. Trans. GeorgiaNat. Club. 1:1–27.

——. [1950]. The butterflies of Georgia revised. Georgia Soc. Nat.Bull. No. 5. 33 pp.

——. 1972. Butterflies of Georgia. Univ. Oklahoma Pr., Norman. 326pp.

HARRIS, T. W. 1841. A report on the insects of Massachusetts, injuri-ous to vegetation. Folsom, Wells, and Thurston, Cambridge, Mas-sachusetts. 459 pp.

HART-DAVIS, D. 2004. Audubon's elephant: America's greatest natu-ralist and the making of the Birds of America. Henry Holt & Co.,New York. 288 pp.

HAWORTH, A. H. 1803–1828. Lepidoptera Britannica: sistens diges-tionem novam insectorum lepidopterorum quae in magna Bri-tannia reperiuntur, larvarum pabulo, temporeque pascendi; ex-pansione alarum; mensibusque volandi; synonymis atque locisobservationibusque variis. 4 vols. J. Murray, London. 609 pp.

——. 1807. Review of the rise and progress of the science of entomology in Great Britain; chronologically digested. Trans. Entomol. Soc. London 1:1–69.

HEALD, D. A. (firm). 2002–2005. Rare books, prints, and maps.About us. Webpage, http://www.donaldheald.com/about_us/about_us_01.php.

HEATH, W. Y. (ed.). 1981. Book auction records, a priced and anno-tated annual record of international book auctions. Vol. 78, for theauction season august 1980–July 1981. Dawson, Folkstone, Eng-land. 547 pp.

——. 1982. Book auction records, a priced and annotated annualrecord of international book auctions. Vol. 79, for the auction sea-son August 1981–July 1982. Dawson, Folkstone, England. 622pp.

——. 1990. Book auction records, a priced and annotated annualrecord of international book auctions. Vol. 87, for the auction sea-son 1989–1990. Dawson, Folkstone, England. 658 pp.

——. 1999. Book auction records, a priced and annotated annualrecord of international book auctions. Vol. 95, for the auction sea-son 1997. Dawson, Folkstone, England. 719 pp.

HEMMING, F. 1937. Hübner; a bibliographical and systematic account of the entomological works of Jacob Hübner and of thesupplements thereto by Carl Geyer, Gottfried Franz von Frölichand and Gottlieb August Wilhelm Herrich-Schäffer. 2 vols. RoyalEntomol. Soc. London.

HOLLAND, W. J. 1898. The butterfly book. A popular guide to aknowledge of the butterflies of North America. Doubleday, Page& Co., New York. 382 pp. 48 pl.

——. 1931. The butterfly book. A popular and scientific manual, de-scribing and depicting all the butterflies of the United States andCanada. New and thoroughly revised edition. Doubleday, Doran& Co., Garden City, New York. 424 pp., 77 pl.

HONEY, M. R. & M. J. SCOBLE. 2001. Linnaeus's butterflies (Lepi-doptera: Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea). Zool. J. Linn. Soc.132:277–399.

HORN, W. & S. SCHENKLING. 1928–1929. Index litteraturae entomo-logicae. Serie I: die welt-literature über die gesamte entomologiebis inklusive 1863. 4 vols. W. Horn, Berlin.

HOWE, E. 1950. A list of London bookbinders 1648–1815. Bibliog.Soc., London. 105 pp.

INGLIS-JONES, E. 1950. Peacocks in paradise. The story of a house-itsowners and the Elysium they established there, in the mountainsof Wales, in the 18th century. Faber & Faber, London. 236 pp.

KIRBY, W. & W. SPENCE. 1815–1826. An introduction to entomology:or elements of the natural history of insects: with plates. 4 vols.Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green, London.

KIRBY, W. F. 1897. A hand-book to the order Lepidoptera. Vol. IV,moths-part II. Edward Lloyd, Ltd., London. 246 pp.

KLIMT, A. & M. STEPPES (eds.). 1999–2000. Allgemeines künstler-lexikon. Bio-bibliographischer index A–Z. 10 vols. Gaci-Hodson.


K. G. Saur, Munchen, Germany. KRAUS, H. P. (firm). [1964]. The illustrated book. Sales cat. 108. New

York. 90 pp. LEAB, K. K. (ed.). 1984. American book prices current 1979–1983.

Index, the auction seasons September 1979–August 1983. Ban-croft-Parkman, Washington, Connecticut. 1074 pp.

——. 1998. American book prices current. Vol. 103: the auction sea-son September 1996–August 1997. Bancroft-Parkman, Washing-ton, Connecticut. 100 pp.

LINTNER, J. A. 1869. Description of a new species of Grapta, andnotes on G. interrogationis. Trans. Amer. Entomol. Soc.2:313–319.

LOW, S. M. 2002. A guide to Audubon's birds of America. A concor-dance containing current names of the birds, plate names, a de-scription of the Bein edition, and corresponding indexes. WilliamRees Co. & Donald A. Heald. New Haven, Connecticut and NewYork. 348 pp.

LOWNDES, W. T. 1834. The bibliographer's manual of literature con-taining an account of rare, curious, and useful books, published inor relating to Great Britain and Ireland, from the invention ofprinting; with bibliographical and critical notices, collations of therarer articles, and the prices at which they have been sold in thepresent century. Vol. 1. W. Pickering, London. 530 pp.

LUNDY, D. 2004. A genealogical survey of the peerage of Britain aswell as the Royal families of Europe. Webpage, www.thepeer-age.com (version 8 May 2005).

MACKALL, L. L. 1931. Catalogue of the Wymberley Jones De RenneGeorgia Library at Wormsloe, Isle of Hope near Savannah, Georgia. 3 vols. Privately Printed, Wormsloe, Georgia.

MALLALIEU, H. L. 1976. The dictionary of British watercolour artistsup to 1920. Antique Coll. Club, Suffolk, England. 298 pp.

MAXTED, I. 1977. The London book trades 1775–1800. A preliminarychecklist of members. Wm. Dawson & Sons, Ltd. Kent, England.257 pp.

MBG (MISSOURI BOTANICAL GARDEN). 1995–2005. Rare books fromthe MBG Library. Web page, http://www.illustratedgarden.org/mobot/rarebooks/index.asp (version May 2005).

MCGRATH, D. F. 1988. Bookman's price index. A guide to the valuesof rare and other out-of-print books. Vol. 37. Gale Res. Inc., De-troit, Michigan. 1103 pp.

——. 1993. Bookman's price index. A guide to the values of rare andother out-of-print books. Vol. 47. Gale Res. Inc., Detroit, Michigan. 940 pp.

MEINERS, E. P. 1948. Book review: “The Natural History of the RarerLepidopterous Insects of Georgia, including their systematic char-acters, the particulars of their several metamorphoses and theplants on which they feed. Collected from the observations of Mr.John Abbot, many years resident in that country.” by James Ed-ward Smith. Lepid. News 2: 43.

MERIAN, M. S. 1705. Metamorphosis insectorum surinamensium. Inqua erucae ac vermes surinamenses, cum omnibus suis transfor-mationibus, ad vivum delineantur et describuntur, singulis eorumin plantas, flores et fructus collocatis, in quibus reperta suni; tuncetiam generatio ranarum bufonum rariorum, lacertarum, serpen-tum, araneorum et formicarum exhibetur; omnia in America advivum naturali magnitudine picta atque descipta. Gerard Valk,Amsterdam. 60 pp., 60 pl.

MIKKOLA, K. 1983. Diagnostic insect pins: some problems of the Linnaean insect collection solved. Antenna 7:16–17.

MOORE-COLYER, R. J. (ed.). 1992. A land of pure delight. Selectionsfrom the letters of Thomas Johnes of Hafod, Cardiganshire(1748–1816). Gomer Pr., Llandysul, Wales. 314 pp.

OFFICER, L. H. 2001. Exchange rate between the United States dol-lar and the British pound, 1791–2004. Econ. Hist. Services. Webpage, http://www.eh.net/hmit/exchangerates/pound.php (version2004).

——. 2004. Comparing the purchasing power of money in GreatBritain from 1264 to 2002. Econ. Hist. Services. Web page,http://www.eh.net/hmit/ppowerbp/ (version 2004).

OPLER, P. A. 1995. Lepidoptera of North America. 2. Distribution of

the butterflies (Papilionoidea and Hesperioidea) of the easternUnited States. Contrib. C. P. Gillette Mus. of Insect Biodiv., Col-orado State Univ., Ft. Collins, Colorado. 72 pp.

OPLER, P. A. & A. D. WARREN. 2002. Butterflies of North America. 2.Scientific names list for butterfly species of North America, northof Mexico. Contrib. C. P. Gillette Mus. of Arth. Biodiv., ColoradoState Univ., Ft. Collins, Colorado. 79 pp.

RAMSDEN, C. 1956. London bookbinders 1780–1840. B. T. Batsford,Ltd., London. 155 pp.

RICH, O. 1846. A catalogue of books relating to America, in variouslanguages, including voyages to the Pacific and round the world,and collections of voyages and travels printed since the year 1700.Compiled principally from the works themselves. Vol. 1.1701–1800. Rich & Sons, London. 517 pp.

RIDGE, D-J. S. (ed). 1966. Rare book collection in the McKissickMemorial Library, The Univeristy of South Carolina, Columbia.Univ. South Carolina, Columbia. 396 pp.

ROBINSON, G. S., P. R. ACKERY, I. J. KITCHING, G. W. BECCALONI, & L.M. HERNÉNDEZ. 2002. Hostplants of the moth and butterflycaterpillars of America north of Mexico. Mem. Amer. Entomol.Inst. 69:1–824.

ROGERS-PRICE, V. 1983. John Abbot in Georgia: the vision of a natu-ralist artist (1751–ca.1840). Madison-Morgan Cult. Ctr., Madison,Georgia. 149 pp.

ROTHSCHILD, W. & K. JORDAN. 1906. A revision of the American pa-pilios. Nov. Zool. 13:411–744.

SABIN, J. 1868. A dictionary of books relating to America from its discovery to the present time. Vol. 1. J. Sabin, New York, NewYork. 566 pp.

SCUDDER, S. H. (ed.). 1869. Entomological correspondence of Thad-deus William Harris, M.D. Boston Soc. Nat. His., Boston, Massa-chusetts. 375 pp., 4 pl.

——. 1870. Minutes. March 23, 1870. Proc. Boston Soc. Nat. His.13:276.

——. 1872. Abbott's [sic] notes on Georgian butterflies. Can. Ento-mol. 4:73–77, 84–87.

——. 1888a. John Abbot, the aurelian. Can. Entomol. 20:150–154. ——. 1888b. Note by Mr. Scudder, pg. 232. In Kirby, W. F., John Ab-

bot, the aurelian. Can. Entomol 20:230–232. ——. 1888–1889. Butterflies of the eastern United States and

Canada. 2 vols. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1958 pp., 89 pl. SMITH, J. E. 1810. Fifteen views, illustrative of a tour to Hafod, in

Cardiganshire, the seat of Thomas Johnes, esq. M. P.. White andCo., London. 23 pp., 15 pl.

SMITH, J. E. & J. ABBOT. 1797. The Natural History of the Rarer Lep-idopterous Insects of Georgia, including their systematic charac-ters, the particulars of their several metamorphoses, and theplants on which they feed, collected from the observations of Mr.John Abbot, many years resident in that country. 2 vols. J. Ed-wards, Cadell & Davies, and J. White, London. 214 pp., 104 pl.

SMITH, LADY [PLEASANCE] (ed.). 1832. Memoir and correspondenceof the late Sir James Edward Smith, M.D.. Longman, Rees,Orme, Brown, Green, and Longman, London. Vol. 1. 610 pp.

STEINER, B. 2003. Audubon art prints. A collector's guide to everyedition. Univ. South Carolina Pr., Columbia. 335 pp.

STRECKER, H. 1872–1878. Lepidoptera, rhopaloceres and hetero-ceres, indigenous and exotic; with descriptions and colored illus-trations. Publ. by the author, Reading, Pennsylvania. 143 pp., 15pl.

SWAINSON, W. 1834. A preliminary discourse on the study of naturalhistory. The Cabinet Cyclopedia. Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown,Green, & Longman and J. Taylor, London. 462 pp.

——. 1840. Taxidermy; with the biography of zoologists, and noticesof their works. The Cabinet Cyclopedia. Longman, Brown, Green& Longman's, London. 392 pp.

SWANN, T. 1996. Great zoological books-a bookseller's perspective.Presentation to the Zoological Society, April 1996. Web page,http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~wheldwes/zoo.html.

THOMPSON, L. S. 1975. The new Sabin; books described by JosephSabin and his successors, now described again on the basis of ex-

amination of originals, and fully indexed by title, subject, joint au-thors, and institutions and agencies. Vol. 2, entries 2485-5802.Whiston Publ. Co., Troy, New York. 534 pp.

TIMPERLEY, C. H. 1839. A dictionary of printers and printing. H.Johnson, London. 996 pp.

TM (TURKEY MILL). 2004. History of Turkey Mill. Web page,http://www.turkeymill.co.uk.

TODD, W. B. 1972. A directory of printers and others in allied trades.London and vicinity 1800–1840. Printing Hist. Soc., London. 234pp.

WAGNER, D. L. 2005. Caterpillars of eastern North America: a guideto identification and natural history. Princeton Univ. Pr., Princeton, New Jersey. 512 pp.

WALTON, W. R. 1921. Entomological drawings and draughtsmen:their relation to the development of economic entomology in theUnited States. Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. 23: 99.

WEISS, H. B. 1936. The pioneer century of American entomology.Publ. by the author. New Brunswick, New Jersey. 320 pp.

WESTWOOD, J. O. 1840. An introduction to the modern classificationof insects; founded on the natural habits and corresponding organisation of the different families. Vol. 2. Longman, Orme,Brown, Greeen, and Longmans, London. 587 pp.

WETTENGL, K. (ed.). 1998. Maria Sibylla Merian, 1647–1717: artistand naturalist. Verlag Gerd Hatje, Ostifildern-Ruit, Germany. 275

pp. WHATMAN (firm). 2004. Whatman history. Web page, http://www.

whatman.com (version April 2005). WILKINSON, R. S. 1981. Smith and Abbot, The Natural History of the

Rarer Lepidopterous Insects of Georgia (1797): its authorship andlater history. Entomol. Rec. J. Var. 93:213–218.

——. 1982. Ninetheenth-century issues of Smith and Abbot, “TheNatural History of the Rarer Lepidopterous Insects of Georgia”(1797). Entomol. Rec. J. Var. 94:122.

WILLIAMSON, G. C. 1919. Bryan's dictionary of painters and en-gravers. Vol. 3. H-M. G. Bell and Sons, Ltd., London. 394 pp.

WITT LIBRARY. 1978. A checklist of painters C 1200–1976 repre-sented in the Witt Library, Courtauld Institute of Art, London.Mansell, London. 337 pp.

WOOD, C. 1978. The dictionary of Victorian painters. Antique Coll.Club, Suffolk, England. 764 pp.

ZIMSEN, E. 1964. The type material of I. C. Fabricius. Munksgaard,Copenhagen. 656 pp.

Received and accepted for publication 14 July 2005


VOLUME 60, NUMBER 1 1 - Yale University

Documents

Transcript of VOLUME 60, NUMBER 1 1 - Yale University